








>\ 



.V 












.■■■& 















K ^ 































ELDER LEMUEL POTTER. 



labors and travels 



OF 



ELDER LEMUEL POTTER 



AS AN 



©ID Scbool Baptist (IMnteter, 



FOR 



THIRTY YEARS, 



WITH A 

Brief Sketch of his Earlier Life, Christian 

Experience, and Gall to the 

Ministry, 

TOGETHER WITH 

HIS DOCTRINAL SENTIMENTS 

ON SOME VITAL POINTS. 



EVANSVILLE, 1ND. 
KELLER PRINTING COMPANY, 

PRINTERS AND BINDERS. 

1894, 



LtOlf ~2~ 



f 



N 



THE LIBRARY 
OF CONGRESS 

WASHINGTON 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 18Q4, by 

LEMUEL POTTER, 

in the 

office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 



PREFACE. 



It may seem strange to many, that a man would 
offer to the public a book like this to read, and my 
reasons for doing so, are two : Several of my breth- 
ren have asked me to give a sketch of my life experi- 
ence and labors, together with my call to the work 
of the ministry, and I have had some inclination to 
do so, thinking that my experience and labors given 
to others might be a comfort, at least to some. 

The reader may find some things in the following 
pages which will be useful. At any rate, I hope there 
is nothing that will do the cause of the Divine Master 
an injury. The motive prompting me to write this 
work, and to place it before the public has been sin- 
cere, and with a view to the advancement of the 
Master's Kingdom. If, therefore, the reader should 
see any mistakes, of which, perhaps, there are many, 
I humbly hope that the mantle of charity may be 
thrown around and imperfections borne with, and 
hat it may not be forgotten that the author is noth_ 
ing but an imperfect man, at best, and that to look 
for perfection in a human production is to find our- 



— 6— 

selves disappointed. It has been my object to relate 
facts precisely as they have occurred, and I can truly 
say it is my experience, without exaggerations or 
extravagancies in any of it. 

Hoping that the reader may not become disgusted 
with it, I submit it to the perusal, criticisms and 
scrutiny of a reading world, with an humble hope 
that it may prove a blessing, at least to some of the 
Lord's little ones. 

Lemuel Potter. 



CHAPTER I. 

It is said that "In the making of many books there is 
no end," and while the following may be put before 
the public as a candidate for patronage, and subject 
to the scrutiny of a reading public, its author only 
hopes that it may be interesting, and honorably fill 
its humble station among all the literary productions 
of the world. I have had, for some time, a sort of 
an aversion to a man, or his friends, undertaking to 
give a history of his life, because, if he writes it 
himself, as a rule, he leaves about half of it out; he 
is very particular to crowd into the work all his 
virtues, and leave out all his vices. This seems, at 
least, to be the rule as far as I have observed. The 
bias of a man in his own favor, is such as to dis- 
qualify him for giving a fair and impartial history of 
his own life deportment, in the world among men. 
Whenever there is a question to settle between him- 
self and others, and he is to be the tribunal before 
which that question is tried, he is certain to gain the 
decision in his favor. If his children should under- 
take to write a history of his life, after he has left 
the world, the result would be about the same. 
While you read such a book, as a rule, you might 
just picture out to yourself a pure angel, and say to 
yourself, there is the life and character of the man 
of whom you are reading. But with all these objec- 
tions, having been called upon many times, and by 



many brethren and friends, to write out and publish 
a history of my own life, experience and labors in 
the world, I have finally obtained the consent of my 
mind to do so. The reader need not expect any- 
thing very scholarly in this work, but just the plain, 
simple statement of facts, as my experience has 
taught me, during my lifetime in the world. If I 
do not give my own faults, many of them, I hope 
that I shall not appear egotistic in magnifying my 
virtues. 

About one hundred and twenty-five years ago, 
more or less, Lewis Potter was born in the state of 
old Virginia, but I am not able to sav what part of 
the state, nor to give the exact date of his birth. He 
lived and raised a family, of which Felix Potter was 
a member, born in the old state of Virginia. The 
latter moved to Kentucky in an early day and lived 
in Warren County in the vicinity of where Bowling 
Green is now located. When he was a man grown, he 
was married to a Miss Brown, and to them were born 
a number of children, among whom was Jesse Potter, 
born in Warren County, Kentucky, October 30th, 
1 82 1. When he was a boy they moved to southern 
Illinois, and at the age of nineteen Jesse was married 
to Miss Margaret Sams, and to them were born five 
children, of whom the author of this work is the 
oldest. I was born October 28th, 1841, in Edwards 
County, Illinois, within a half mile, perhaps, of 
where Samsville is now located. Samsville took its 
name from my grandfather Sams, on the corner of 
whose farm the little village w r as founded. I was 



— 9 — 

born and raised in that part of the country, engaged 
in helping to clear out and cultivate a farm until I 
was a man grown. 



CHAPTER II 

During my boyhood days the country of southern 
Illinois was new. Perhaps there was not a mile of 
railroad in the state when I was born. It was quite 
a new country, and there were wolves, deer, turkey 
and other wild game in abundance. Land, a great 
deal of it was not taken up, and my father entered a 
considerableportion of the land where he now lives, 
at $1.25 per acre. It was then a wild bushy woods. 
The country was very sparsely settled, there being 
scarcely enough children in the whole township to 
justify a school teacher to teach them at the ordinary 
price. The advantages, generally, were very poor 
at that time in that part of the country. Men fre- 
quently cut their wheat, those who raised any, with 
a sickle, sometimes a cradle was used. A man 
on a farm who ow led a wagon was considered a 
well-to-do farmer. There were no mills in the 
•country of any consequence. Sometimes a man 
would take his wheat to mill, and while his own horses 
pulled the mill that ground it ; if he got it bolted, he 
might have to turn the bolts with his own hands while 
it was being ground. Sometimes he would get it 
ground and take it home unbolted. Horse-mills 
.and wind-mills were most common. Once in awhile 



IO- 



a water-mill, could be found on some creek or stream 
that would grind when the water was not too high 
nor too low. Very few people in that section of the 
country, at that time raised wheat, there being no mills 
and no market. There was one church in our neigh- 
borhood, and that was Long Prairie Church, of Old 
School Baptists, which is still in existence in the 
same neighborhood. The old house that we used to 
go to in my boyhood days, was a log house, and 
there were no other meeting-houses of any denom- 
ination, nearer than one within about seven miles. 
And as there were no places of pleasure or amuse- 
ment, the people of that country in those days, 
almost, if not quite all, attended church at this place. 
The church was constituted in 1825, with nine mem- 
bers. The people in those days made their own 
living at home. They grew their own wool and flax, 
did their own spinning and weaving, and it did not 
take a great deal to live on then, as it does now. 
Clothes and provisions were hardly as fine as they 
are now. The fine May-meeting dress for the 
country woman was of home-made cotton, that she 
had made herself, with her own hands, taking every- 
thing from the stump, so to speak. Before the 
washboarcf came into use, the battling-stick was a 
very popular instrument in washing clothes, and it 
was about as common, while a woman was down at 
the creek, or branch, or spring, doing her week's 
washing, to hear the battling-stick, which sounded 
in the distance like heavy pounding, as it was to see- 
the smoke from her fire. But amidst all these dis- 



— II- 



advantages, the people were happy, sociable and 
sober. All the people were neighborly, if not from 
good principles, they were from necessity, for a man 
could not afford to be selfish during such times, from 
the fact that many times he had work to do, such as 
raising houses and other heavy work that he could 
not do alone, and not being able to hire hands to do 
his work, he necessarily had to depend on what was 
then called "swapping" work with his neighbors. 



CHAPTER II. 

During my boyhood days I was taught that to be 
idle was disgraceful, and that nothing could be very 
respectable that did not have work attached to it. 
My father was a great worker, and those about him 
had to cultivate the spirit of industry. Hence, in my 
very early life, he was always able to find something 
that he thought would be profitable for me to engage 
in. I can hardly remember when I was not large 
enough to throw a limb or branch on a fire during 
the winter or spring, or to get up of mornings and 
make- fires and go out and feed early, or to rake 
wheat up into bundles ready to be bound during 
harvest, or to hoe corn, or to follow the plow and 
remove the clods off the little corn while he plowed. 

At the age of ten, my mother died of consump- 
tion. I was very small for my age, but the next 
spring after I was ten, I was put out in the field with 
a yoke of old gentle cattle, to harrow in some oats 



12 — 

that father had sown broadcast, and from that time 
on I went to plowing with the same cattle, and from 
that on until I was grown I worked more with cattle 
than any other team, and worked them more or less 
every year. I helped plow, harrow, haul saw-logs, 
have gone to mill and market, gathered com, hauled 
wheat and hay out of the field in harvest time, and 
plowed and harrowed in hot weather with cattle — in 
fact I have done almost everything with them that 
they are capable of doing on a farm. And so far 
as the ox being used in scripture, to illustrate the 
character and work of a minister as a servant, I have 
sometimes thought that I know something of the use 
of the ox, literally speaking, whether I know any- 
thing about the services of a minister, spiritually 
speaking, or not. 

I never had very great advantages in obtaining an 
education. What little schooling I got was at home in 
our own district schools. I managed by the time I was 
a man grown, to procure what was called in Illinois, 
a second grade certificate, to teach school. The 
most of my education I have obtained since then. 
Examinations, however, were not so rigid as they 
are now, by any means. I do not think I ever got 
a first grade certificate. A teacher in those days 
was examined in the seven common branches, for 
teaching a countrv school. I taught my first school 
in 1862, a three months school in the summer. My 
salary was fifteen dollars per month, and I boarded 
myself. It was, however, not far from home, and I 
worked mornings, evenings and Saturdays for my 



— !3— 

board. So that I made in that three months, the sum 
of $45.00, cash. This is the first money I ever 
ovvned, more than a few pieces of small change, once 
in a while, less than a dollar at a time. I taught 
this school in the summer, and that fall I was twenty- 
one years of age. The next March I was married to 
Miss Lydia Jane Humphreys, who was my choice 
for a companion, of all women. We have now 
been married about thirty-one years, and to us 
have been born seven children, five of whom 
are now living, three of them married and two single. 
Three of them have possession of a hope in Christ, 
and two of them members of the Regular Baptist 
Church. The other two died in infancy. 



CHAPTER IV. 

As before stated I was married on the 22d day of 
March, 1863. During the preceding winter, I taught 
school three months, about a mile ancU a half south- 
east of West Salem, in my native county. I was 
fond of mirth and innocent pleasures, frequently 
attending the ball-room and enjoyed dancing. But 
I had always, from my earliest recollections, a great 
regard for good morals. I had a great desire, when 
I was a boy, to be recognized as a good boy. I 
wanted to be respected as a truthful boy. But, with 
all my desire to stand high, as I have before remarked, 
I was fond of mirth and innocent pleasures. Busi- 
ness, however, kept me engaged almost all the time, 



—i 4 — 

so that I did not spend as much time in going to 
shows, fairs, parties and other pleasure trips as my 
neighbor boys usually did. I thought at the time 
that it was a hardship that I was kept so close, and 
not allowed the privileges that other boys had, but I 
feel now that perhaps it was best for me. During 
my term of school, already mentioned, began my 
exercise of mind on the subject of religion. I think 
I had serious impressions occasionally, from my 
earliest recollection, and feel now that I have had 
promptings or cautions from the good Spirit, occa- 
sionally, all my life, if I ever had. I will now 
relate a reason for my hope in the Savior, that I 
experienced at the time already stated. About the 
beginning of the year 1863, I was permitted to have 
a full view of my own poor wicked heart, and O, 
how miserable ! I need not look around now for a 
man with a heart full of evil and vain imaginations, 
for if there is not another heart in the world that 
answered the description given in the Bible, mine 
did. The very throbbings of my own heart seemed 
to speak the terror of the law to a poor sinner like I 
was. At first I tried to rid myself of the impression 
that I was the greatest sinner in the world, but all 
seemed in vain, I could not throw off the impression 
that I was the most miserable sinner in the world. I 
tried, under these impressions to ask the Lord for 
mercy, but it looked so much like solemn mockery 
for one so vile, who had nothing good to present 
to the Lord, that at times I was almost afraid to call 
on his name. 



- I 5- 

Often have I, in the great agony of my poor heart, 
taken a walk, more to be alone than anything else, 
and in those lonesome hours I would often find myself 
trying to ask the Lord for mercy as I walked along. 
Sometimes I was made to think that the Lord had 
shown me the wickedness of my poor, sinful self, 
that I might see His justice in my condemnation. It 
seemed that my time in the world was now going to 
close, and I must die and be lost. O, how wretched ! 
It was not worth while to tell others of the trouble I 
was in, for they could not sympathize with me, I 
thought. Still I kept trying to do something good 
that the Lord would bless me with peace of mind, 
and it seemed that nothing would give that but mercy 
in the forgiveness of sins. If the Lord would forgive 
all my wrongs, and the innumerable sins I had com- 
mitted, I thought I would be under greater obliga- 
tions to Him than any poor sinner that ever lived in 
the world. In this way I went on for four or five 
weeks, and it seemed that I could see no peace at 
any time or place. Everything wore a gloomy, 
dismal appearance to me. Finally I came to the 
conclusion that there was something that I had not 
done that I must do before the Lord would have 
mercy. 

In trying to call to mind what it might be that I 
had not done, it occured to me that I had never been 
humble enough to kneel down and pray to the Lord ; 
and that was the reason I had received no evidence 
of the forgiveness of sins. Determined to do, what I 
thought I had committed sin in neglecting to do until 



— 16— 

now, I started to a place where I intended to get on 
my knees in prayer to the Lord for mercy to one of 
the vilest sinners of the race of Adam. I started 
with a full determination that when I got to that 
place I would kneel down without any hesitation, 
and try and pray to the Lord ; but instead of doing 
so I walked past the place I had started to. I stop- 
ped, and the thought of my poor heart was, "you 
are too haughty, and your heart too obdurate, and 
the Lord will be just and send you to torment." 

O, it is more than I can do to describe the anguish 
of soul just at this time. Lord, be merciful ; if I am 
lost it is just, and if saved, it is a poor guilty sinner 
saved by Grace. It seems now that I stood in one 
place and was trembling like a leaf, trying to ask 
the Lord for mercy, and had almost given up in 
despair, when suddenly there was a change came 
over me that brought peace that I am not able to 
describe, and I felt like praising the Lord for his 
grace in the salvation of a lost and justly condemned 
sinner. My trouble was gone, and I thought I 
would not be troubled any more on account of sin, 
but, O, how mistaken! I have seen many troubles 
since then, and often think that my life is so imper- 
fect, and bears so few marks of a Christian, that I 
often doubt the reality of my knowledge of the Lord. 

In October, 1863, I united with the church, and 
have been trying to live in the service of the Lord. 
I have thought many times that my hope would notdo, 
yet if I have to go into eternity in a moment, it is the 
very best I have. The fellowship of the brethren is 



-i 7 - 

worth more to me than all the friendship in the 
world. 

I have now only given simply a relation of what 
took place with me some thirty-one years ago, and I 
leave my brethren and sisters to judge of the reality 
of its being the Lord's work. I thought when I first 
joined the church, that by the time I was thirty-five 
or forty years of age I would become more devoted 
in my feelings towards religious matters, and be 
more reconciled to the will of the Lord than I was 
then, but I see no difference in those particulars. I 
am still a poor sinner and do not deserve saving, yet 
God's mercy and grace is sufficient, so I still have 
hope. 

CHAPTER V. 

After school was out in the spring and I was mar- 
ried, I went to work to raise a crop, still under the 
impression that there was only one way to make a 
living, and that was by hard labor and constant 
employment. O, that all the boys could still be so 
impressed. The time I now refer to was right in 
the midst of the late war. Farm products were 
generally high. Tobacco, sometimes, brought as 
high as fifteen dollars per hundred, and a great many 
people in our part of the country raised cotton, as it 
was a very hard article to get at that time. While 
engaged in raising a crop, the subject of religion 
was on my mind every day of my life, and some- 
times, perhaps, every hour in the day that I was 



i8— 



awake. I was a constant reader and student of the 
Scriptures, and whenever I had a leisure hour I was 
perusing that sacred book. I was under the impres- 
sion that as I had, I thought, obtained a hope in the 
Savior, there was a duty enjoined upon me, and 
frequently the importance of discharging my duty 
by submitting to the ordinances of God's house, 
bore upon my mind to such an extent, that it caused 
me a great deal of serious meditation. In fact, a 
great deal of the time I was in trouble, and felt sad 
and cast down, and it looked many times as if I 
was robbed of everything that was calculated to 
make me cheerful. Not because it was unpleasant 
to work and to make a living, and to enjoy the socie- 
ty of a young wife, the wife of my youth, but it 
seemed that my studies upon the subject of religion 
disqualified me for the earthly blessings and privi- 
leges that I had. The church that I have mentioned 
in a previous chapter, had gone down so that she 
had neither house to preach in, nor pastor to preach 
to her, and while there were, perhaps, thirty mem- 
bers belonging to that church, the only meetings 
they held were those held by transient ministers, 
who might pass through the neighborhood and preach 
at some private house, or school house, and it was 
frequently the case that I would not hear of such 
meetings 'till they were over. I felt a great desire 
frequently, to know if my wife was interested upon 
the subject of religion, as I was, but for a long time 
said nothing to her upon the subject. Two or three 
times during the summer, she and I got on our 



— 1 9 — 

horses, and rode over to Mount Erie, in Wayne 
county, to Providence church. We thought it was 
a great treat to go to meeting where the brethren 
and sisters seemed to take an interest in church 
affairs, and we thought they did at that church. I 
studied a great deal about joining the church at that 
time, but there were several difficulties in the way. 
One was, that as far as I was acquainted with the 
Old School Baptists, they had no young members. 
All their members that I had ever seen were old men 
and women. Our neighbors had often predicted 
that they would soon all die out, and I could not see 
why they would not. The prospects looked very 
gloomy to me, especially when I would take Long 
Prairie church as an example ; and I was better 
acquainted with that church than any other. I did 
not know whether they would want as young a per- 
son as I was in their church or not. I would often 
think when I would hear them talk on the subject, that 
a candidate for baptism among them must undergo a 
very rigid examination on the subject, of a reason 
for his hope. This, I was afraid that I could not 
give. My experience was very small if I had any, 
and I was not capable of telling it very well. I felt 
then, and do yet, that it would be a great sin to 
deceive the church, and be deceived myself, on the 
subject of religion. With all these difficulties before 
me, I went about a great portion of the time, with 
my head hung down, and of ten felt like I would love 
to talk on the subject of religion, if I had some per- 
son to talk to, to whom I thought such a conversa- 



•20- 



tion would be pleasant. I, however, finally resolved 
to go to Providence church, at the October meeting, 
and offer myself, and let the church be her own 
judge as to my fitness or unfitness to be baptized. 
Elders E. S. Madding and Isaiah Walker both 
preached on that day, and after preaching the oppor- 
tunity was extended for members to come to the 
church, and I went up, and after I was through talk- 
ing, before the brethren had time to say anything, 
it just seemed to me that they would not receive me 
because I had told nothing, yet I had told all I had 
to tell. I will not say that I was surprised when 
they did receive me, neither will I say that I would 
not have thought hard of them if they had not 
received me. But after I was received and baptized, 
I felt like the change was a great one. I could be 
cheerful now. Instead of going about and feeling 
like I was forsaken, I might be heard whistling or 
singing, or giving some demonstration of peace of 
mind and joy of heart, while I was about my work 
every day. When I went to the house I was 
very fond of singing in the old hymnbook. It did 
then, and does yet, occur to me that it paid me, 
poor and unworthy as I felt, to join the church. By 
so doing, I cast my lot in among the best friends I 
had upon earth. No other people could have ever 
come so near being one with me as my brethren and 
sisters in the church have. It is, indeed a wonderful 
display of God's condescending love and mercy to 
His poor children, that He has established His 
church here as a home for His little ones, while they 



■2 1 



travel through this life, and battle with all its diffi- 
culties. I would say to all who have a hope in the 
Savior, and have never yet united with the church, 
you get the most pay for the least service rendered 
when you obey the Lord, more than anything else that 
I ever knew anything about. I felt like I was the least 
one of the whole family, when I joined the church. 
And I still feel that if there is any one place in the 
church more suitable for me than another, it must be at 
the feet of the brethren ; for I know that I am, at best, 
a poor, imperfect, needy and unworthy sinner. I am 
as dependent on God for His grace and mercy "in my 
salvation, as the new-born child is on its mother for 
care, sustenance and protection. I feel like adopt- 
ing the language of the great apostle to the Gentiles : 
"It is by the grace of God that I am what I am." 

CHAPTER VI. 

There has been quite a change in the country in 
southern Illinois since I first joined the church. 
There was the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad, then 
in operation from Cincinnati to St. Louis, running 
across the state of Illinois, running from Vincennes 
to St. Louis, and the Illinois Central was in opera- 
tion, running from Chicago to Cairo, and the Ev- 
ansville and Terre Haute was in operation, running 
from Evansville to Terre Haute, and was then called 
the Evansville and Crawfordsville Railroad. South 
of the O. & M., and east and west from the Illinois 
Central to the E. & T. H. was a country that had no 



-22- 



railroads, most of it lying in southern Illinois. Under 
these circumstances, a man traveling through the 
country was necessarily compelled to furnish his 
own means of conveyance. Traveling on horse- 
back was the most popular method at that time. 
Baptist ministers, as a rule, were farmers, living 
upon their own farms, making their own livings, 
and each one of them pastoring from one to four 
churches, and sometimes five. The idea of the 
brethren giving the preacher a living, or any part of 
a living, at that time, was entirely unknown among 
the Old School Baptists in southern Illinois. Some 
of the preachers were the most independent men in 
the church, so far as worldly possessions were con- 
cerned. This is still true in many cases. If a man 
had to go a certain number of miles to his church, 
it was understood that that amount of travel was re- 
quired of him on horse-back, or in a buggy or some 
other conveyance of his own. 

After I had joined the church, and felt that I had 
done my duty so far, it was not long till I began to 
be impressed with the thought of preaching the gos- 
pel. This was something very repugnant to my 
feelings and nature. I tried to fix the matter up 
satisfactorily with my own mind, for a long time. I 
tried to persuade myself that for me to entertain a 
thought that it was my duty to preach, must be a 
great delusion. There were many reasons I thought, 
why it could not be enjoined upon me to preach. 

I-was poor, and had all the responsibilities of a 
family as other men had.. I was ignorant and inex- 



—23— 

perienced so far as the world was concerned. I do 
not think that I had ever been more than thirty or 
forty miles from home in my life, until I had joined 
the church and commenced trying to preach. My 
impressions to preach were all to myself. I kept 
them a profound secret as long as I could, but felt 
at times that I endured a great deal of trouble. I 
would sometimes fancy that I was in the presence of 
a congregation, preaching to them, or engaged in 
prayer publicly, or singing with a congregation, and 
shaking hands among them. Often in my medita- 
tations, a text of scripture would crowd itself upon 
my mind, and I would frequently catch myself 
preaching to myself on that text, and when I would 
find myself thus engaged, I felt mean and ashamed, 
for I thought that it was wrong, and that some one 
might see me at such things, and if they should, I 
felt sure they would have no confidence in me. I 
tried to get rid of such impressions, that I might get 
rid of such a practice as that, but it increased, and I 
finally became so absorbed on the subject that I pre- 
ferred to wander about, and rove the fields and 
woods alone, rather than the best company I had in 
the world. Sometimes I would go out for something, 
or to do something, and would wander about, I do 
not know how long. I would sometimes go to the 
barn to feed my horses, and when I had come back, I 
could not have told whether I had fed them or not. 
While in this great trouble and strain of mind, I was 
not unmindful of the responsibilities resting upon a 
minister of the gospel, although I did not know as fully 



—2 4 — 

what it all meant, as I hope I do now. My wife 
would sometimes tell me about the way I was doing, 
and would talk to me and try to get me to quit it, 
and sometimes she would laugh at me, and mimic 
me in order to break me of what she thought was a 
habit I had gotten into ; but it all did no good. 
Badly as she might have hated it, she could not rem- 
edy the matter. Nothing that I could do, or that 
she could say, relieved my mind. The greatest 
privilege to me was frequently to get hold of the 
Bible, or hymn-book to read or sing. 

During the winter of '64 and '65, I taught school, 
about three and a half miles from home, and as I 
walked across the fields to and from my school, 
mornings and evenings, scarcely did any other subject 
cross my mind. I finally concluded that to read a 
chapter and pray at night before going to bed, 
would be a great relief to my mind, and a portion 
of the time I thus engaged. It was a great pleasure 
to me to do so. and during the day I would fre- 
quently think what a pleasure it would be to me to- 
night to read a chapter, and get on my knees, and 
try to return to the Lord the gratitude of my heart 
for all His mercies and blessings to me and mine. I 
feel now that I lived nearer the Lord then, and real- 
ized more sensibly my need of His grace, and the 
fullness of that grace, than I am able to do since. 
In my great trouble of mind on the subject of preach- 
ing, I frequently thought that if I would go to the 
church and relate my feelings to the church, just 
once, that my work in that particular would be done, 



—2 5 — 

and that I would be relieved of all my trouble on 
that subject. At the same time, I felt that if it 
would, I would freely go the first opportunity, for I 
would be willing to do almost anything that was 
respectable and honorable, that would relieve my 
mind, and set me free from the burden that I was 
groaning under at the time. But I was afraid to 
venture, for fear it might be simply the beginning 
of my labors publicly, as a minister. I did not in- 
tend to preach as long as I could possibly keep from 
it. I said nothing to anyone about it as long as I 
could help it. I never did get relief of mind on 
this subject until I did engage in the public minis- 
try of the Lord. The first effort I ever made was 
Saturday Vjefore the second Sunday in January, 1865. 
This was my birthday in the ministry, and I have 
been as constantly engaged in the work from then 
till now, as any man during that time. 

CHAPTER VII. 

While I am on the subject of my reasons for ever 
trying to preach, I wish to give a little narrative that 
occured just one month before my first effort. On 
Saturday of our December meeting, 1864, Elders 
Lewis Hunsinger, and Nathaniel Williams visited 
us. They lived about thirty miles away, and came 
on horseback to our meeting, and on that day our 
church called Elder Hunsinger to the pastoral care 
of the church, which he accepted. I was not ac- 
quainted with those two brethren, it was the second 



—26— 

time in my life that I had ever seen Elder Hun- 
singer, and I had heard Elder Williams preach, in 
all, perhaps three or four times, and if I had ever 
spoken to him, or had an introduction to him, I had 
no recollection of it. I was quite young — only 
twenty-three years old past, and while I felt like it 
would be a pleasure to me to have some of the 
brethren go home with me, I had no thought 
of asking those preaching brethren to go. I 
felt that they would want to go among older people? 
where they could be better, and more agreeably en- 
tertained. So, rubbing right round them, I invited 
some of the brethren, with whom I was better ac- 
quainted, to go home with me, and said nothing to 
them. Finally, Elder Williams looked at me, and 
said, "Lewis and I are going home with you." 
That suited me very well, but I had entertained no 
thought that it would suit them. They went, and, 
it being cold weather, we had no meeting that night, 
and I built a large fire, and we had a very pleasant 
time, sitting by the fire and talking on the subject of 
religion. During our conversation, Elder Williams 
suggested that we all tell our experiences, beginning 
at the oldest and going down to the youngest. I 
thought that a good idea, for my wife was not a 
member of the church at that time, and I thought that 
those brethren had had some conversation with her 
during the afternoon, and feeling eager myself upon 
the subject, I was willing for us to tell our experiences, 
thinking that by the time she heard all of us talk, she 
would be willing and ready to talk, and I thought 



—27— 

that was what the Elder made the suggestion for ; so,, 
agreeable to his own proposition, he, being the oldest 
person present, told his experience. And after 
relating a reason of his hope in Christ, and giving 
an account of his going to the church and being bap- 
tized, he went on to give an account of his impress- 
ions to preach. And while he was talking he pic- 
tured out my course to me as well as I could have 
done myself. I had never heard a man tell his call 
to preach before. I felt very badly to sit under his 
voice and hear him talk as he did. The thought 
occurred to me that some one had apprehended me 
and had told him all about what I had been doing, 
and that he had taken all the pains to come to my 
house and expose me ; then again I would think that 
he was simply telling his own experience, and that 
he knew nothing about me, for he had never spoken 
to me in his life till to-day, but I was anxious for 
him to drop the subject. He went on, however, giv- 
ing his own troubles, till he gave an account of his 
beginning to preach. When he got through he 
turned to me and said, "Do you know anything 
about that?" I was never more astonished, and I 
think I answered him about this way: "I have had 
some feelings that I do not understand." He then 
asked me, "Do you think you can answer me with 
a clear conscience that you will never try to speak in 
public?" My reply was, "The Lord only knows 
what I will do ; I do not." The subject was dropped 
and I was glad. No one had ever hinted anything 
of the sort to me before, and why this strange man 



—28— 

should come to my house and pick me out in any such 
a manner, was a mystery that I was not able to solve, 
neither am I yet. If any of the brethren had said 
anything to him, they never had to me. I have had 
thoughts about that occasionally, during my whole 
ministerial life, and I have thought in all probability 
that it might have been my duty to preach, and the 
Lord may have impressed that man, as his servant, 
with the fact, so that he might talk to me, and give 
me some encouragement to go immediately to the 
work. 

Between that time and our next meeting, an old 
Brother Williams who lived in our little town, called, 
as he frequently did, to sit and talk till bedtime, and 
while he was there on this special occasion, I told 
him my secret. After giving him an account of 
some of the trouble and impressions that I had under- 
gone, for it seemed that I must tell some one, I said 
to him, "Now, Uncle Jesse, if you can tell me what 
is the matter, I want you to do so, for I do not 
know." He rather laughed, saying, "I know what 
it is ; you have to preach, that is what is the matter 
with you." I then felt like I had told a secret that 
I should have kept to myself, and I began to beg 
him to promise me upon the honor of a man, that he 
would never say a word about it to anyone. But he 
would not. He said, "I shall do nothing of the 
sort. If our pastor is with us next meeting, I will 
tell him about your case and have him invite you for- 
ward. If he should not be there, I shall preside 
over the meeting in the absence of the preacher, and 



— 2 9 — 

I shall invite you forward." That was all I could 
get out of him. He talked to me and so did my 
wife, on that occasion, giving me encouragement 
to obey the call, for the Lord had called me to the 
work of the ministry, and the sooner I obeyed the 
better it would be for me, and the more he would 
be honored. This gave me a great deal of trouble. 
I studied a great deal from that on till meeting 
time. I knew that Uncle Jesse would do what he 
said he would. I dreaded it from one standpoint, 
and I was perfectly willing from another. When 
meeting day rolled around, as I was sexton, I con- 
cluded to go early, and make fires and sweep out 
the house and leave before anyone came. That 
plan seemed all satisfactory till I got back home. 
But I was made to feel miserable and restless, to 
think of remaining at home and not going to meeting 
that day, so I picked up my hat and started. When 
I got to the meeting house I tried to be cheerful. 
I led in singing two or three songs, and finally, 
Uncle Jesse invited me, as the pastor did not come, 
to come forward and open meeting. I did so, 
by singing a song, and praying, the first time I had 
ever tried to pray in public. After prayer, I made 
the remark to the church that if no one had any ob- 
jection, I would love to talk a little while. There 
was an old brother present whose name was Abner 
Cox, and whose memory I love to this day. He 
spoke out saying, "If you have anything to say, just 
say on." I talked awhile, and after meeting was 
dismissed, this old Brother Cox spoke about having 



— 3°— 

services to-morrow, — Sunday, — saying that I could 

talk to the people, — and he and the brethren would 

not listen to anything else. Meeting was appointed. 

This was the first time I had ever tried to even sing 

and pray in public, and after I had gone home some 

of the brethren and sisters who went along with me 

for dinner, made some remarks about the meeting. 

One sister, in fun, spoke to me and called me her 

preacher. I cannot say that such a remark hurt my 

feelings for I knew that it was done in the greatest 

of kindness, and at the same time, was spoken more 

in the way of fun than anything else. But during 

the afternoon I heard of remarks that had been 

made, such as, "Who do you suppose preached at 

the Baptist church to-day?" "Potter preached, I 

am told," they would say, "and he is to preach 

again to-morrow, for they have no other preacher at 

their meeting this time," and some of them would 

say, "I intend to hear him to-morrow." All this 

kind of talk I heard during the afternoon, as it had 

been indulged in on the streets and in the stores of 

the little town where I lived. About four o'clock 

that afternoon, after the brethren had all gone away, 

I became deeply distressed about what I had done. 

It seemed to "me that surely it was not my duty to 

preach, and that it was very much out of my place to 

undertake it. The very idea, that I should go into 

the stand and try to talk to the people concerning 

their spiritual interests and welfare was absurd in 

the extreme. I was poor, weak, ignorant, and in 

every way disqualified for such an important work. 



— 3 1 - 

Surely the Lord does not require such a work at my 
hands. And in this way I reasoned, and tried to 
beg the Lord to let me know what was right, — for 
about four hours. I felt as if I would give every- 
thing that I ever expected to have pertaining to this 
life if I could just call back a few hours. I did wish 
I had not gone to church that day, for by going I 
had exposed myself in a manner that I was fearful 
would result in great harm to myself and to the cause 
of the blessed Redeemer. I do not think I ever 
suffered more in mind, in four hours in my life, as to 
my impressions on the subject of the ministry. I felt 
that I wanted to do the will of the Lord, but can it 
be His will that I should ever try to preach ? Does 
He require such a great and important work at my 
hands ? I felt that if I were going to select some one 
among my acquaintances to preach the gospel, I 
could find hundreds of them who would be more 
likely to be useful and profitable preachers than it 
would be possible for me to ever be. I realized the 
responsibility resting upon me as a husband and 
father. I had poverty to contend with, as well as 
almost all other disadvantages that a poor fellow 
ever had. In this way I reasoned and agonized all 
the evening. My wife went to bed with her baby, 
at the usual hour for bedtime, and left me sitting 
up, perhaps totally ignorant of what was on my 
mind, and as I reasoned the matter over, it seemed 
to me that if I could only have a decision from the 
Lord, in some way or other, as to my duty in regard 
to the matter, that I would abide by it. About eight 



— 3 2 — 

o'clock that night, as I was sitting all alone by the fire, 
my wife and baby both asleep, the thought presented 
itself to me like this: "If it is your duty to preach, 
you will have it to do, and the Lord will let you 
know by giving you the ability to preach, and if it is 
not your duty He will let you know by withholding 
that ability, and you will have to try it in order to 
find out. This has appeared to me ever since, as a 
sort of compact entered into between the Lord and 
myself. I felt perfectly resigned. I went to bed, 
slept and rested sweetly during the night, and arose 
the next morning with all the peace of mind and 
conscience that I desired, and felt as if the matter 
would soon be decided, for the Lord will let me 
know if it is ray duty to preach by giving me the 
ability to do so, and if it is not my duty He will 
let me know by withholding that ability, and I will 
have to try in order to find out. I felt perfectly will- 
ing to test the matter that way, and if I should find 
out that it was not my duty to preach I should quit 
it at once. With this understanding I went in to the 
work, and I have been trying from then until now, 
and I have been undecided many times whether it 
was my duty to preach or not ; for at times I have 
thought the Lord was with me, and that I was able 
to preach, and at other times I have felt confident 
that I was all alone, shut up in the dark and unable 
to say anything that would either encourage any of 
His people, or glorify His name. When I was 
younger I thought many times that I would quit 
preaching. I felt in earnest about that, but I suffered 



—33— 

so much for such a resolution that I finally became 
afraid to say that I was not going to preach any more, 
and for many years it has been my determination to 
battle along with all the tempests of life incident to 
a minister of the gospel, the best I could, while the 
Lord seemed to have any use for me in the world. 
On Sunday morning I went to the meeting house 
with as great a desire and as great a delight in trying to 
preach as I have ever had in my life since then. That 
morning when I got to the meeting house I found 
this same Brother Cox and two or three other old 
brothers standing out waiting for me to come. When 
I stepped up to where they were and spoke to them, 
they told me they wanted to see me a few minutes, 
and took me around back of the house. They told 
me they did not want me to feel that I would be in 
the way when I arose. to talk, or that they did not 
want to hear me, but that they wanted me to feel at 
liberty and that they were anxious to have me talk 
and had a great desire to hear me. They gave me 
every kind of encouragement that a set of good old 
brethren could, letting me know at the same time 
that they would pray the Lord to bless me in my 
efforts. Such kindness as this I have never forgot- 
ten. Those dear old fathers are all asleep, and I 
am still battling with life, and I love and cherish 
their memory to this day. When I arose before the 
people that day, it was not with the impression that 
those dear old brethren did not want to see me get 
up, for they had given me full assurance to the con- 
trary. I would say now to brethren, when the Lord 



—34— 

gives you a young gift in the ministry, treat him 
kindly. He is like a tender plant just springing up 
from the ground, and a very slight look of disappro- 
bation, is calculated to discourage and kill him. If 
the Lord calls a man to preach among you, it is for 
your good, and not for his, and you should treat 
him as a gift from God. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

My object in trying to preach the gospel was to 
discharge a duty that I thought the Lord had enjoined 
upon me, and relieve my mind of the terrible burden 
and trouble that seemed to rest upon it. When I 
was under impressions to preach, before I ever began, 
certain localities of country would be on my mind, 
and especially was this true of the vicinity of Gray- 
ville, Illinois. And I thought more of preaching to 
the people there than in any other locality in the 
world. At the same time, I did not know a single 
person in that neighborhood. I was aware that there 
was a church in Grayville, but I did not know who 
its pastor was nor who the members of the church 
were. I never had been to that place, except to go 
to mill or market, and consequently knew nothing 
about the condition of affairs there religiously. 
However, after I began trying to preach, I still 
thought of trying to preach in that neighborhood, and 
finally made it a point to. visit there a time or two, 
and sometimes met brethren of that church at the 



—35— 

associations, and by that means got acquainted with 
two or three of them, and finally under very peculiar 
circumstances in January, 1868, I was called to the 
care of that church, and I had the name of pastoring 
the church for about twelve years. When I took the 
care of the church at Grayville, her membership was 
run down to about twenty, most of whom were old 
sisters, perhaps half a dozen male members, and 
they were poor. The old house that had been built 
there, I think, in 1835, was very much dilapidated, 
and was not fit to hold meeting in, in cold weather, 
or at any other time. However, after I commenced 
my labors there the church revived, and her member- 
ship ran up to upwards of ninety members, and she 
repaired her house, and seemed to wield a good 
influence over the community for a long while, and 
still so continues. Large congregations attended my 
ministry while I preached there. But amid all the 
trials in my efforts in trying to preach, and discharge 
my duty as a poor servant of the Lord, I found many 
embarrassments to encounter. I was poor, inexperi- 
enced in the world, and was raising a family, and I 
thought and felt that great responsibilities rested 
upon me as a husband and father as well as a minis- 
ter. It was not long after I commenced preaching 
until I had four regular appointments. In trying to 
preach and to make my own living, too, by my own 
labor on rented ground, it began to look to me that, 
in spite of everything, I would be compelled to neg- 
lect my farm or my ministry one or the other, if not 
both. I noticed that my neighbors were busy all the 



-36- 

time, and that they could not more than get along 
in the world, yet when I left my work on Friday 
afternoon, everything stood still till I would get back, 
sometimes on Monday evening. This caused me a 
great deal of serious thought. The brethren who 
wanted me to preach for them had never been accus- 
tomed to assist their preachers in any way, and from 
the best I could learn from their conversations, they 
had been educated to think that it was sinful to pay 
a preacher for preaching. If the text should be 
quoted that "The laborer is worthy of his hire," or 
that "The Lord had ordained that they who preach 
the gospel should live of the gospel," they would 
put some spiritual interpretation on the text, so that 
their obligations to their ministers were entirely 
obviated. I remember, on one occasion, when I 
was in company with two or three old brethren, who 
I thought, were as good friends as I had in the church, 
that I concluded I would mention this subject to 
them, and that perhaps they would give me some 
comfort. I very timidly, and with great diffidence 
broached the subject, when one of the old brethren 
made me this reply: "If you want money for 
preaching you had better go to the Missionaries, 
where they hire their preachers." Such an answer 
from one in whom I had great confidence was rather 
discouraging to me, and of course I naturally touched 
the subject very lightly in his presence at that time. 
There are, no doubt, a great many brethren among 
our churches who think that old brother was just 
right, and who, at the same time would insist on a 



—37— 

man leaving his home and family and going a long 
distance at a great expense to preach, and would tell 
him that he had to preach because the Lord had 
made it his duty to do so, whether the people gave 
him anything to live on or not. As far as I am con- 
cerned, what I say now is not for my own benefit, 
but I am simply giving my own experience upon this 
subject, not to censure or reprove anyone. Another 
embarrassment which I met with that may be inter- 
esting to the reader, I will mention here. 

Shortly after I had commenced exercising in pub- 
lic, through the solicitations of some of the brethren 
of my own church, who lived some ten miles away 
from the neighborhood, I made an appointment to 
preach at a school-house in their neighborhood. 
They were in the habit of having preaching at that 
place whenever they could get a preacher. In the 
meantime, an old brother in the ministry, had moved 
into my neighborhood, who was a stranger to all 
of us, and with whom I had become acquainted 
more than any of the rest of the brethren. After 
he had moved into the neighborhood, he seemed to 
have a perfect dislike to me. If I approached him 
with the most pertinent question, he was more likely 
to snub me than any other way. My recollection is 
that I did not fear him, and that his snubs did not 
make me more backward, but it made his company 
unpleasant to me and caused me to entertain a feel- 
ing which paralyzed every desire I might have had 
to hear him preach. On Sunday morning, I hitched 
up to my buggy, and took my wife and baby and 



-38- 

started out to my appointment. I passed this old 
brother's house and saw his horse standing hitched 
at the gate with the saddle on, and when I saw that, 
I supposed that perhaps he might be going to my 
meeting. He came out, mounted his horse, and rode 
along behind my buggy all the way out there. Soon 
the people began to gather, and while they were 
singing, he took out his hymn-book and testament, 
selected his song and text, and without any invita- 
tion from myself or any one else, he arose, introduced 
services, took his text and preached, and when he 
got through, dismissed the audience without paying 
any more attention tome than if I had not been there. 
He was not mentioned in the appointment, and the 
people had no idea that he would be there, still they 
did not object to his preaching that I know of. I 
thought that was rather cool treatment, and I still 
think that it is very unbecoming in any old minister 
to treat a young minister in that manner. I did not 
feel very much discouraged at it, it does not seem to 
me, but it made an impression on my mind that I 
have not yet forgotten. It was simply embarrassing 
to me, as I think it certainly would be to any young 
man just starting out in the ministry. I give this 
incident in order to show that old ministers may make 
some very great mistakes. It is very unbecoming in 
an old minister, or an old man otherwise, to be over- 
bearing with the young. 



—39— 
CHAPTER IX. 

In the foregoing chapter I have given an account 
of the cold treatment of an old brother in the minis- 
try, and will now say, that had I known that he was 
going to go there and preach that day, my feelings 
were such toward him that I should not have gone. 
I have heard remarks from old brethren before now, 
that made me think that they thought the more 
severe they could be on a young brother the more 
Godly they would be. However, I think that is a 
grand mistake, and that no man, because he is old, 
let him be minister or anything else, has a right to 
hide behind his old age to abuse younger people. 
While I would impress the minds of young people, 
everywhere, to respect old age and gray hairs, I 
would also give a hint to old ones to keep in their 
places. But amid all embarrassments, I had calls 
and invitations to visit churches and brethren, more 
than half a dozen men could fill. I had not been 
engaged long in the ministry until I had four regular 
appointments. My means of travel was on horse- 
back, or in the buggy, but mostly on horse-back. I 
have started out to my appointments to be gone ten 
days or two weeks, on a tour, and my first appoint- 
ment sixty miles from home, and I would go the 
whole trip on horse-back. I wish to give in this 
chapter, a narrative or two of some risks that I have 
run to get to my appointments. When I was young, 
I was very small, weighing at one time that I remem- 
ber, since I was thirty years old, as low as one hun- 



— 4 o— 

dred and seventeen pounds. I was always blest 
with excellent health, and was used to hardship 
and very few men could stand cold better than I 
could, or do with less sleep, or go longer without 
food without suffering more than I did. I have 
got on my horse, and rode to the creek or river 
within two or three miles of my appointment, 
and being unable to get my horse across, would hitch 
him, coon a log, cross the creek and go on to my 
appointment on foot, and then come back, cross the 
creek and go home, and feel very good over the 
affair. But I will relate here, that at one time, on 
one Sunday morning, in June, the Little Wabash was 
between me and my appointment for that day. There 
were no bridges across that stream at that time except 
one, at Masilon, Wayne County, which was about 
seven miles from where I lived, and by going to this 
bridge to cross the river, it made the distance about 
fourteen miles to my appointment that day. The 
river was up, and I knew of no other way to get 
across, so I took my wife and child in the buggy and 
we started. We struck the river about two miles or 
such a matter above the bridge, and from there on to 
the bridge we were in the river-bottoms, sometimes 
immediately on the bank of the river, and sometimes 
a mile or such a matter from the river. The river 
was level bank full, and as a matter of course, run- 
ning out into the sloughs and bayous. We had some 
of these to cross. When we came to the first one or 
two I did not know but that it might be swimming, 
so I would get out of the buggy, take my horse out, 



—4i— 

get on and ride across, and then comeback and hitch 
to the buggy, and drive across. After I had done 
this two or three times, we came to one slough that 
I knew would swim our horse, and it would not do 
to drive into it, but there were the remains of an old 
bridge, and I arranged the planks on that bridge so 
as to have a walk for my horse which I led across. 
I then arranged the planks again for the wheels 
of my buggy, which I drew over by hand. I then 
hitched up., and perhaps got on my horse once or 
twice more and rode across some of those sloughs, 
and found none of them very deep. I was satisfied 
there were no more between me and the bridge that 
would swim my horse, so I said to my wife, "The 
next water that I come to I intend to drive in." 
About half a mile before we came to the bridge the 
road forked, the right hand going to the bridge and 
the left hand going to the old ford below the bridge 
some half a mile. I passed this fork of the road 
without noticing it, and the first thing I knew I saw 
water before me which I thought was a slough, and 
as my word was out to drive into the next water I 
came to, I drove right up to this with the intention 
of driving in. But when I got near I saw by the 
current of the stream that'it was the river, and look- 
ing across I saw the bluffs on the other side, which 
reminded me that it was the old. ford, and that I had 
gone wrong back at the forks of the road. A few 
rods farther, and I, with my wife and child, horse 
and buggy would have been into that river which, 
at that time was perhaps seventy-five or one hundred 



— 4 2— 

feet deep. Of course we never would have gotten 
out alive. I felt that it was the hand of a greater 
power that caused me to look forward and see the 
current of the water, and that it was the river, and 
thus save our lives. It was then about half a mile 
right up the river to the bridge, but no road. The 
woods were open, however, and rather than drive 
back to the forks of the road, I pulled off my boots 
and stockings, and went before the horse to clear the 
way of chunks and brush, my wife driving, until we 
got to the bridge. Sometimes I was in water above 
my knees. I then put on my boots, got into the 
buggy and drove on to my appointment, feeling all 
right. I have been able to say what some of our 
good brethren in the ministry could not, and that is, 
that my wife has never been opposed to me in my 
labors in the ministry. In fact, she encouraged me 
to go to preaching before I ever began. It seems to 
me that many times I would have become so dis- 
couraged that I might have given the matter up, had 
it not been for her advice, and sometimes persuasion, 
for me to go on, trusting in the Lord as my only 
support. Amid all the dangers and embarrassments, 
the brethren and sisters have always borne with my 
manner and imperfections, and have, taking all 
things together, been better to me, perhaps than they 
have to a great many better men and ministers. 
I feel that I ought to be very thankful and hum- 
ble, as well as very pleasant to my brethren wher- 
ever I see them, for the kindness and brotherly 
affection that they have always shown me. I was 



—43— 

first liberated by the church to exercise a public gift 
in the churches in the bounds of the Skillet Fork 
Association. I have had a great many invitations to 
come to different neighborhoods to preach, with the 
promise from the one who invited me that they would 
help me pay my expenses there and back if I would 
come. To help pay expenses is very good, but to 
pay all expenses and let the minister get home as 
well off as he left home is still better. In that 
respect, however, I have fared very well, and feel 
that I have no complaint to enter, and what I say 
upon the subject of assisting the ministry is not for 
my own sake, so much as for the sake of other men 
in the ministry, who try to serve the churches, while, 
perhaps, the churches neglect their duty toward them. 
I think very little of a man hiring himself out to 
preach the gospel, but I also think very little of the 
idea of a set of people, who are blessed with an abund- 
ance of this world's goods, expecting a poor minister 
to come and preach to them at his own expense. 
But these practices, in my judgment, the Bible 
plainly opposes. 



—44— 
CHAPTER X. 

It was a long time after I began to exercise in 
public before I was willing to say before a stranger, 
that I was a minister of the gospel. It always 
seemed to me that it was too great a mouthful for 
me. I think, however, that there are extremes in 
that direction. A man may be too diffident about 
claiming to be a minister. I feel certain that the 
calling is one that a man should not be ashamed of, 
if he can satisfy himself that it is really his duty 
to preach. Paul said, "I preach," he also said, 
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for 
it is the power of God unto salvation to every one 
that believeth." But I am told that it is not because 
they are ashamed of the gospel that they are back- 
ward about claiming to be ministers ; in fact, it 
does not occur to me that I was ashamed of the 
gospel, but I was young, and as I have already re- 
marked, I was small. I had never had a great deal of 
experience in the world, and when I came to a strange 
place, I hardly knew how to observe good manners 
for I hardly knew what they were. If there is such 
a thing as a real native country rustic, I was certainly 
one when I started out in the ministry. I was more 
familiar with the road to the mill or to the black- 
smith shop than anywhere else, during my life before 
I joined the church. I was raised, as already 
observed, in a new country, and can now remember 
the first frame or brick house that I ever saw. The" 
people all lived in little log houses, and were all poor 



-45— 

alike, and all ignorant about alike. To take a boy 
from this sort of life, and put him in the pulpit is a 
change, which, if he has good common sense, will 
make him feel many times, that he is badly out of 
place. When I went into a strange neighborhood, 
and had introductions to the brethren, I was aware 
that it called forth remarks from the people who 
were present concerning "That boy," because they 
had no thought from my appearance, that I was a 
minister. They thought that even if I claimed to 
be one, it was unreasonable to think that I could 
preach. To all such remarks, when I heard of them, 
I was very, sensitive. 

But I now wish to give a narrative, that I exper- 
ienced when I was traveling. I had been preach- 
ing about three years. I had moved to Gray- 
ville, or near there, and in June, 1868, I sent some 
appointments out into Clay and Marion counties, 
Illinois. I rode on horse-back from Grayville to 
Olney, left my horse with one of the brethren, 
boarded the train and went from there to Iuka. 
My first appointment was at Summit Prairie Church, 
about five miles from Iuka. I had a brother-in-law 
living at Iuka, so I intended to stop off there and 
visit him and his family, and then go on to my 
appointments. After I boarded the train at Olney, 
I noticed one gentleman who seemed to be rather 
conspicuous, walking through the car and talking 
loudly, with his hat off, as if he were polite, and 
I thought in all probability, he might be a clergy- 
man of some sort. He finally sat down in the seat 



- 4 6_ 

with me and began conversation. I was very timid, 
and let him do the most of the talking. He finally 
asked me where I was going. I said, "I am going 
to Iuka." "What are you going there for?" he 
inquired. "I am going to see my brother-in-law and 
his family." ''Does he live in Iuka?" "Yes, sir." 
"Is that the only place you are going to?" And I 
did not want to tell him that I was a preacher, and 
that I was going out on a preaching tour, but he 
pressed the matter, till I told him finally that I was 
going to fill some appointments that I had, at two 
or three different churches in that county. Said 
he, "You are a minister, then?" I told him I was 
a sort of a one. "What church do you preach for?" 
he inquired. I told him I preached for the Baptist 
church. "The Missionary Baptist church ?" said he. 
I told him, "No, sir. The Old School Baptist 
church." He stormed out, "Haven't you any more 
sense than to preach such doctrine as that?" I told 
him, "No, sir, I did not have a bit more sense than 
to preach that doctrine ; the Bible taught it and I felt 
confident that when I was preaching it I was preach- 
ing the truth, and that the Lord would approbate my 
course." He had considerable more to say but I 
do not remember any more of the conversation, but 
I do know that it was very impressive to me, and I 
was glad when I got rid of him as a companion. 



-47— 
CHAPTER XL 

I was first liberated by the church to exercise a gift 
in the bounds of the Skillet Fork Association. 
Whether the church has a right to limit a gift that 
is recognized as being of the Lord, to any locality 
of the world, is a matter that I now seriously doubt. 
However, I was submissive to the action of the church 
at the time, and would also advise young gifts to be 
submissive to their churches now, even if the church 
should make a mistake, the young minister is safer 
while living in humble submission to his church than 
he is under any other circumstances. In the course 
of a year, or such a matter, I was again liberated to 
exercise a gift wherever the Lord, in his providence 
might cast my lot. I will now state that I have my 
doubts as to the propriety of a church liberating a 
man to preach, or giving him license, as it is some- 
times called. We find no account of anything of 
that kind in the Scriptures, and I am of the opinion, 
that if the church has a gift it is her duty to encour- 
age him, and let him make full proof of his ministry, 
and if she becomes satisfied in her wisdom, that he 
should be set forward as a minister of the gospel, she 
should call for a presbytery and have him ordained 
to the full functions of the gospel ministry. While 
I am on the duty of the churches toward their young 
gifts, I will mention one evil that I think I have seen 
among a great many of our people, and that is a dis- 
position to want to hear men who are able, instead 
of young men who have just started out in the min- 



- 4 8- 

istry. I visited a church once, that had several young 
brethren, whom she had liberated to speak in public, 
and I invited one of them, on Saturday night, to 
preach, which he did very satisfactorily. I went 
home with a family that night, and was rather 
severely reprimanded for inviting the young man up, 
the good people informing me that if I wanted to 
hear him preach, I might invite him to my own home 
church, but they did not want to hear him^ and they 
did not w T ant me to invite him up any more. I 
thought they were very obliging to take the pains to 
give license to a man to preach to other people, 
whom they did not wish to hear themselves. The 
oldest and ablest minister in the church was the 
youngest minister at one time, and as we have no 
training schools in- which to teach men how to preach, 
we should endure with great patience our young gifts 
whom the Lord calls and gives to us, knowing, that 
before they can be men, they must first be boys in 
the ministry. We should never erect a standard of 
perfection, and expect them to come up to it. A 
young minister is like the most tender plant when it 
first springs up out of the earth. He will wilt at the 
least unkindness, or token of disapprobation from 
his brethren. Sometimes old ministers think they 
have a right to speak short to or snub a young min- 
ister. I think I have seen some things of that kind 
that were taken by the old minister and his brethren 
as indications of smartness. But I think they were 
sadly mistaken, and that the cause of God is wounded 
whenever an old minister takes the iberty to domi- 



—49— 

neer over a young gift in such a manner as to wound 
his feelings, and make him dread to go into the pres- 
ence of his senior minister. The Lord calls men to 
preach, not for the accommodation of the preacher, 
but for the comfort, consolation and upbuilding of 
his church, and the preacher should be considered 
properly and in his place. He should never be looked 
on as a master by the church, neither should the 
church ever come to the conclusion that it is a great 
favor to the preacher to let him preach. If he is a 
servant of God he will get all the preaching to do 
that he can do, and the better he is treated, the more 
profitable his labors are likely to be. Sometimes the 
people get very uneasy for fear the preacher will be 
spoiled, and get above his brethren, and it becomes 
necessary for the brethren to watch that point very 
closely. At least, they seem to think so, from 
remarks they are in the habit of making many times. 
I have heard men say in regard to their treatment of 
a minister, something like this: "I go to hear you 
preach almost every time you preach in my neigh- 
borhood." Surely the man who treats a preacher 
that well must be a warm personal friend to the 
preacher, and the preacher ought to consider himself 
highly complimented if a good brother even goes to 
hear him preach. 



_ 5 o- 
CHAPTER XII. 

When I had been exercising in public about two 
years, I was teaching our winter school, in the winter 
of '65 and '66 and there were no Baptist meetings 
for me to go to, except to go to my own church once 
a month, which was about twelve miles from where 
I lived, and I had to cross the river, which a portion 
of the time was disagreeable, and perhaps I had more 
zeal at that time than ability, and desired to be at 
meeting oftener than once a month. The church in 
the neighborhood where I lived, known as Long 
Prairie church, at that time was not holding meetings 
regularly. She had neither house nor pastor, and a 
membership of about thirty or forty members, as well 
as I remember. So, in order to have more 
meetings to go to, and hoping to bring the church 
together, I concluded to have meetings once a month, 
at the school-house where I was teaching. So I 
announced to my school-children that I would have 
meeting at that school-house on Sunday, which was 
the first Sunday in the month. That had always 
been the regular time of the meeting of Long Prairie 
church. When the time came there were a few peo- 
ple out to hear me, and I talked to them as well as I 
could and I felt that I had some evidence, at least, 
of divine approbation. At the close of my services, 
I announced that I would have meeting there again, 
on the first Sunday in next month. When the time 
rolled around, my congregation had increased con- 
siderably, and that encouraged me to think, that in 



— 5 i- 

all probability, my labors were not in vain. I again 
announced that on the first Sunday of the next month 
there would be meeting there again, when one bro- 
ther spoke out saying, "Have meeting on Saturday 
the next time." I readily consented to that, and the 
church came together that time on Saturday, and 
reorganized. From that on we had meetings during 
that spring, summer and fall, part of the time at the 
school-house and part of the time in an arbor in the 
grove near by. During the summer there were two 
or three accessions to the church by experience and 
baptism. I, not being ordained, of course could not 
baptize them. My wife and I moved our member- 
ship to that church, and during the next winter I kept 
the meetings up there every month ; and at the March 
meeting a brother rose and told the church that he 
had been studying about my case for some time, and 
he made a motion that the church send to sister 
churches for ordained authorities, to form a presby- 
tery for the purpose of examining, and, if thought 
proper by the presbytery, to ordain me to the full 
work of the gospel ministry. When he sat down, 
and his motion was seconded, I arose to speak, and 
the Moderator ordered me to sit down, which I did, 
feeling somewhat hurt that he would not allow me to 
say anything. The motion carried, and the church 
agreed to send to certain sister churches, and requested 
me to go and bear a letter to one of them, and if I 
could not go alone, to go with some brother, which 
I utterly refused to do. I sincerely felt that I did not 
want to be at any sister church when such a letter was 



— 5 2 — 

read. The brother appointed to go to one of the 
churches seemed determined to have me go with him 
and came past my house for that purpose, but I 
refused to go. 

The day of my ordination was one of the most 
solemn days to me that I ever witnessed. While, 
from "till that I could see, the old brethren, sisters 
and friends seemed cheerful, yet I felt very sad. 
When I looked up and down the road and saw the 
good people coming together, and especially the 
visiting ministry, I was glad to see them, but I was 
sorry they were there on the mission they were. I 
hope the reader will not understand me that I did 
not wish to be ordained, if the church thought I was 
a proper candidate for ordination, but I feared my 
own weakness and many imperfections. I was 
under the impression that an ordained minister was 
placed under a great many obligations and responsi- 
bilities that I was afraid I could never live up to. It 
seemed to me that I did not have enough confidence 
in myself to think that I was certain to live right, or 
even live in such a manner that the brethren might 
never regret having me ordained. I felt that' a min- 
ister was responsible for all the false doctrines and 
heresies, both in doctrine and practice that ever came 
into the church. I was impressed, when quite young, 
with the thought that a good sound, orderly church 
was dependent on a sound, faithful, orderly ministry. 
That I believe yet, and for me to feel that I was a 
proper subject for ordination was something that I 
could not do. When the brethren came together and 



—53— 

the sermon had been preached by Elder David Stew- 
art, the church sat for business, and asked for the 
responses from the sister churches that had been 
called on. The brethren to compose the presbytery 
were received, and when they had organized for 
business they called for the candidate. I was sitting 
rather back of some of the brethren, next to the wall, 
and I just thought that I could not respond when they 
called for me. A brother came and took me by the 
hand and "led me out, in front of the presbytery, 
where there was a chair for me to occupy during the 
examination. As I was being thus led by this good 
brother, I felt more like a prisoner than a minister 
of the gospel. I thought that I could not talk. My 
recollection is that from the time the} 7 called for me 
until I was ordained I was crying almost all the time, 
and what little I did say, was said amid sobs and 
tears. I never will forget that day. I believed that 
the brethren were composed of good, godly and 
devout men, faithful ministers of the gospel. But I 
was afraid they were mistaken in my case. It might 
have been that if they had not ordained me, I would 
have thought hard of them, but at the same time it 
seems to me that I would have thought it was all 
right. I still feel poor, weak and unworthy, and 
perhaps a majority of the times that I have had to 
try to preach from that day. to this, I have dreaded 
the time to come when I should arise to talk. Very 
few of my efforts have been perfectly satisfactory. 
I sometimes think that I can make the most complete 
failures of any man that ever stood in the pulpit, and 



—54— 

opened his mouth to preach the gospel. I seldom 
ever have been able to make any calculations before- 
hand, as to how, or what I should preach, and then 
afterwards work up to such calculations. It may 
seem strange to the reader, but it is nevertheless true, 
that, perhaps a majority of the times that I go into 
the pulpit, I do so, not knowing what will be my 
subject on that occasion, till I take my Bible down, 
and my eye strikes some text, that I conclude to talk 
about. 

CHAPTER XIII. 

After I commenced taking the care of churches, 
and baptizing and administering The Supper, it 
seemed like things were going along very smoothly 
except once in a while a brother would seem to criti- 
cise the doctrine of the resurrection. There was an 
old minister living in the country whose name was 
William Trainer, and who had been preaching in 
that country for many years before I was grown. 
He used to preach at my father's house when I was 
a boy. I held him in very high esteem as a man and 
a minister for some years after I commenced trying 
to preach. When I began to go out among the 
brethren, I would sometimes hear remarks made con- 
cerning him, that he did not believe in the doctrine 
of the resurrection of the body. He was occasion- 
ally accused of saying that he did not believe that 
anything would ever go to heaven that did not first 
come down from heaven. It was hard for me to 



-55— 

believe but that he was all right, and I thought that 
some of the other ministers were jealous of him, and 
that that was the reason they found fault with his 
preaching. I was very fond of him, and I watched 
very closely after I had heard him accused, and I 
finally became satisfied that he did not believe in the 
salvation of the Adam man. He believed that the 
body — the earthly body — was no part of a child of 
God. After I became convinced that this was his 
faith I said nothing, for awhile, because I was young, 
and felt that I might be mistaken about the matter, 
until one time he preached at a school house a few 
miles from where I lived and I went to hear him. 
His appointment had been published the Sunday 
before, and on that Sunday I went to my father's in 
company with some others for dinner, and as we 
were about separating, I overheard my father and 
another brother, in conversation, speak of Elder 
Trainer's appointment. They both expressed a 
desire to go and hear hiirij saying that if he had ever 
denied the resurrection of the body, they had never 
heard him. I said nothing, but thought that I had 
heard him. I went to hear him on this occasion, 
and when I got there these brethren were there, and 
when he arose to preach, he stated that some people 
were mistaken as to who the child of God is, or else 
he was. He said some thought that the lady and 
gentleman were the children of God, but that he did 
not believe that. When he made use of that expres- 
sion I thought, "they hear it now." I know now, 
and did then, that if the lady or gentleman is not the 



- 5 6- 

child of God, the doctrine of the resurrection of the 
body is not a true doctrine. Elder Trainer, at that 
time was on his way to Little Wabash Church, in 
White county, and I concluded to make the trip with 
him, which I did. I rode with him all day, during 
which time he talked a great deal, for he was a great 
talker. He satisfied me that he did not believe in 
the resurrection of the body, for he said it in so many 
words. His preaching among the churches in that 
part of the country caused a great deal of wrangling 
and considerable hardness among the brethren, and 
the exclusion of some good men from the church. 
This was rather embarrassing for me, to go among 
brethren who differed, and yet seemed to be good 
brethren. Matters went on in this way for some two 
or three years, before a final separation came on 
account of the non-resurrection doctrine. 

In the winter of 1868, I was called to the care of 
Grayville church, and moved down into the neigh- 
borhood of that church. After I had been there 
about a year, it seemed that the non-resuirection doc- 
trine advocated by Elder Trainer and others was 
causing more and more trouble all the time, and the 
feeling was getting very high, until finally the church 
at Little Wabash called a council from several of the 
churches around, to advise them what to do, which 
council advised all our churches to shut the anti-resur- 
rection doctrine out of their houses. This most of 
the churches did throughout the Skillet Fork Asso- 
ciation. 



-57— 
CHAPTER XIV. 

While I am on the subject of the trouble concern- 
ing the non-resurrection doctrine, I will state that in 
the year 1869, the church at Little Wabash, White 
county, Illinois, at the request of her pastor. Elder 
David Stuart, called for the council mentioned in the 
preceding chapter. The council was to meet in Feb- 
ruary. Some of Elder Trainer's friends notified 
him of the meeting, and he and another preacher by 
the name of Enoch Tabor attended the meeting. On 
their way to that meeting, they had an appointment 
at my church at Grayville, for Tabor to preach on 
Friday night. I had never seen Elder Tabor, but 
he was said to be a very able man. Being in com- 
pany with Elder Trainer, it was natural to suppose 
that he would be in sympathy with him on that doc- 
trine. I went out to hear him preach, and he took 
for his text, " It is a faithful saying, and worthy of 
all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the world 
to save sinners, of whom I am chief." For about 
an hour and a half, I thought he made as able a 
defense of the doctrine of salvation by grace, without 
creature conditions or merits, and against the charges 
on the part of conditionalists, as I ever heard a man 
make. I could not help but be pleased with his 
ability and the masterly and powerful manner in 
which he defended the doctrine of salvation as being 
by grace alone, through the Lord Jesus Christ. At 
the end of that time he began to inquire, ■* But who 
is it that is saved? Is it the Adam man, or any of 



-5§- 

his posterity?" and for another hour and a half, I do 
not think I have ever heard a man give his own peo- 
ple, claiming the Baptists as his people, more abuse 
for believing the doctrine of the resurrection, and the 
salvation of the Adamic sinner than he did. He said 
he had been in good standing with the Baptist peo- 
ple ever since the year 1827, and that he had oppor- 
tunities to know what the Baptist doctrine was, and 
he wanted no better evidence that a man was a Phar- 
isee, than for him to believe in the doctrine of the 
resurrection of the just and the unjust. He said that 
if a man had his name written in letters of gold upon 
his forehead, whose brilliancy would outshine the 
sun, "Pharisee," it would be no better evidence to 
him that he was a Pharisee than for him to say he 
believed in the resurrection of the just and the unjust. 
While he was preaching, I looked over my congre- 
gation and saw that the house was full of people, 
and that the majority of them were unacquainted with 
what the Baptists really did believe upon the question 
of the resurrection. All my responsibilities began 
to bear heavily upon my mind. Should I, young, 
weak and timid as I was, presume so much as to tell 
this intelligent and thinking audience that I did not 
believe or endorse this man's preaching on the ques- 
tion of the resurrection ? If I undertake to argue 
against him the people will think I am foolish. If I 
let matters go and say nothing about it, I do injustice 
to my own cause. I am the pastor of this church, 
and have read in scripture the obligations resting 
upon a watchman who sees the foe coming and does 



-59- 

not give the alarm, I made up my mind, however, 
that I would not say a word until after Elder Trainer 
had said what he had to say. So, at the close of 
Elder Tabor's remarks, Elder Trainer arose, and in 
a short speech, said he heartily endorsed the entire 
discourse, and seemed to be very enthusiastic in say- 
ing so. At the close of his remarks, he was about 
to dismiss the congregation, when I ventured to give 
his coat a pull, and told him I would love to speak. 
I arose, and, as near as I remember, made the fol- 
lowing speech. I told my people that we would 
always do well to watch strangers. If the brother 
we had heard preach to-night was an honest man it 
would not hurt him to watch him, and if he was not 
an honest man, we should watch him, even if it did 
hurt him. I told them that he was one of those men, 
that the apostle frequently speaks of, who go about 
causing divisions and trouble in the churches. It was 
not my intention to say so positively that he was one 
of these men, but I intended to say he might be one 
of them, but in my embarrassment, and perhaps 
excitement, I said it the other way, and just let it go, 
believing that it was the truth anyway. I told the 
people that I believed in the doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion, that I could not understand Elder Tabor's posi- 
tion, that it was the sinner who was saved, and at the 
same time that the sinner saved was not Adam, nor 
any of his posterity. It seemed to present to my 
mind a contradiction and an inconsistency. I 
remarked that I believed in the doctrine of the resur- 
rection of the just and of the unjust, even if I must 



— 6o— 

be called a Pharisee for saying it. For me to arise 
in the face of a large audience, and in the presence 
of two men who were as able as they were, and hav- 
ing so much the advantage of me in age, was one of 
the hardest trials of my life, as a minister. After I 
was through, and the meeting was dismissed, quite 
a number of my brethren and friends came to me and 
gave me their hand, and congratulated me on my 
faithfulness. And I felt that I had done no more 
than was my duty to do, although I was thought by 
those men to be egotistical. This meeting occurred 
on Friday night, and on Saturday morning I went 
down to the Little Wabash church, where those two 
brethren were going, and when I arrived there and 
met them on the ground, neither of them would 
speak to me. By some means the brethren had been 
informed of the meeting we had held at Grayville, 
the night before, and a number of them spoke 
to me about it before meeting time. There were 
brethren in the ministry, as well as other brethren 
from almost all our churches at the meeting on Sat- 
urday, and when it came time for preaching, the first 
thing I knew Elders Tabor and Trainer were invited 
into the stand, and I was called on to preach. That 
surprised me to some extent, but I could not prevail 
on the brethren to excuse me, so I took a seat in the 
stand between those two men and neither of them 
looked at me. I do not think I was ever acquainted 
with a preacher that I loved more dearly than I had 
loved Elder Trainer, having known him from my 
boyhood days. During the sermon, the night before 



— 6i— 

at Grayville, he would speak out in approbation of 
Elder Tabor, during his discourse, and when I went 
into the stand, I felt determined in my own mind, 
that he should "grunt" for me a few times that day 
if the Lord would bless me with the ability to preach 
to him as I wished. He was very tender On the 
question of an experience, and I got him to sanction 
some of the internal evidences of grace, even to the 
extent that his tears flowed freely, and I asked him 
the question, "If this is not the sinner who feels and 
realizes those evidences, who is it?" 

They had an appointment at Grayville, on their 
way home, for the Tuesday night following, and I 
went again, thinking, "I will make Elder Trainer 
speak to me now." We had always been good 
friends. So I went early to the church, and found 
only a few there, and I went and sat down by him 
and spoke to him, and in conversation, I asked him 
if he endorsed what that man had been preaching all 
the time. He said he did, and that if the Baptists 
did not believe it that Elder Tabor would debate the 
question with any of them. I told him we wanted 
no debate, but that I would love for him to state to 
me as nearly as he could, and in as few words as 
possible, what he believed. He said he believed 
that there were three generations of people. The 
generation of Adam, the generation of Jesus Christ, 
and the generation of vipers. The generation of 
Adam were made of the dust of the ground, and 
would go back to the dust where they came from, 
and remain there forever. The generation of Jesus 



—62^ 

Christ came down from heaven, took up their abode 
in the Adam man, and they would finally go back to 
heaven where they came from. The generation of 
vipers came from hell, and they also took up their 
abode in the Adam man, and would go back to hell 
where they came from. I heard Elder Tabor preach 
that night, and during his trip, and he would fre- 
quently say that there were some old Baptists in this 
country, who were so large that Jesus Christ's over- 
coat would not make them a sleeve jacket. Of 
course he regarded me as one of those. But that is 
all right. I felt then, and do now, that I was will- 
ing to thus suffer for the sake of truth. 



CHAPTER XV. 

I hope the reader will not become impatient while 
I continue the history of this non-resurrection trouble. 
As the council which was called at Little Wabash 
Church, advised the churches of our faith and order, 
to close their doors against the anti-resurrection doc- 
trine, our church at Grayville passed an act at their 
following meeting, closing her doors against the 
non-resurrectionists and the Universalists. Several 
other churches in the country did the same, relative 
to the non-resurrection doctrine. The church at 
Long Prairie, however, was not in a condition to 
agree on an action of that kind. If that church at 
that time had been forced to take action in the mat- 
ter, I think perhaps three-fourths of her members 



-6 3 - 

would have voted in favor of allowing that doctrine 
preached in her pulpit. There was some little hard- 
ness on the part of some of her members toward our 
ministers who advocated the doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion, and opposed that of non-resurrection. 

One little circumstance occurred that I will here 
relate. Their pastor was a man by the name of 
Ford, and from all we can learn concerning him, he 
believed in the doctrine of no resurrection. My 
grandfather, who was also a minister, was a mem- 
ber of that church, and on one occasion undertook 
to preach on the question of the resurrection, when 
Elder Ford arose to follow him, and began to criti- 
cise his sermon. His course was such as to make 
the matter unpleasant, and he made a special ap- 
pointment to preach on the subject of the resurrec- 
tion, at which appointment he said he would give 
his views on that subject. I heard about the matter 
and concluded I would go and hear him, and as 
he was to preach on Sunday, I sent an appoint- 
ment to the church that I would preach on the 
preceding Saturday night. When I arrived at the 
church that night, some of the brethren who had 
been my warmest and most intimate personal 
friends in that church, seemed very distant, especi- 
ally, one brother who was a deacon. He came 
into the house and barely spoke to me, and then, 
after a few moments, went out again. I followed 
him out, and mentioned the condition of the church 
on the subject of the resurrection, and found that 
he was as I thought, rather out of humor. I asked 



-64- 

him what he thought the church would do; He said, 
he did not know, and, not giving me a short answer, 
he did not care much what they did. I asked 
him if he knew what they did at Little Wabash 
church, and he said he did. I asked him, "How did 
it suit you?" He replied to me in these words, 
"Lemuel, it did not suit me." He stated that the 
Little Wabash Church had Elder Trainer charged 
with saying that the tares were the children of the 
wicked one, and that it was one of the complaints 
against him. I told him I knew that was not the 
case. He disputed with me and said that he knew 
that it was the case ; they had it in the neighborhood 
in black and white. I told him finally, it mattered 
not to me what they had in black and white, I knew 
that the church had no such complaint against Elder 
Trainer, for I was there and heard everything that 
was said. He told me that the word had gone out 
all over this country, that I was coming here to re- 
ply to brother Ford and I thought he seemed to talk 
short about it. I told him that such a report was en- 
tirely without any foundation whatever. I had never 
thought of such a thing. I asked him "Is Brother 
Ford a non-resurrectionist?" He replied to me, 
"They say he is." "Well," said I, "What do you 
say? You have heard him." "Well," said he, "I 
say he is not. If Elder Trainer is, he is." "Well," 
said I, "That settles it. For I know that Elder 
Trainer is." We went back into the house, and I 
filled my appointment the best I could, but felt no 
little embarrassment at the sad state of things in 



-65- 

this dear old church, where I have been in the habit 
of hearing the gospel preached ever since I was old 
enough to listen to a sermon. The people were my 
brethren, neighbors, and friends, and for hard feel- 
ings to exist among them, and especially for them 
to think hard of me, was very discouraging, to say 
the least of it. I was quite young, and had only 
been in the ministry about four years, and if I was 
ever to know much, I had it almost all to learn. I 
believed in the doctrine of the resurrection of the 
body, both of the just and the unjust. I was satis- 
fied it had always been the doctrine of the church, 
and that the apostles taught it, and for the brethren 
to be turned against the doctrine now, was sad to 
me, indeed. 

On Sunday I went to hear Elder Ford's views on 
the resurrection, but he failed, from some cause, to 
put in an appearance, and the brethren invited me to 
preach, which I, at first, was very loth to undertake. 
But I finally went into the stand with a determina- 
tion to say nothing whatever about the resurrection. 
But when I commenced preaching, I could talk 
about nothing else, and so I gave way to my own 
feelings, and the leadings of my mind on that subject, 
and perhaps I never said more on that subject in an 
hour than I did then. I felt when I was through, that 
I had simply discharged my duty in trying to defend 
the truth, and that the Lord had been with me, for 
I thought I could see some good indications beam- 
ing from the countenances of some of the brethren 
present who had been vascillating, at least upon that 



—66— 

subject. An old brother came to me after dismis- 
sion, and invited me to preach at his house that 
night, stating that he wanted to hear some more of 
it. I agreed to do so, and went directly home with 
him for dinner, and from that on, the feeling of that 
church seemed to turn in a different direction, and 
perdaps to-day it is as firm in the belief of the doc- 
trine of the resurrection of the body as any church 
in the country. I do not claim any credit for being 
the salvation of that church. Whether I had any 
thing to do in the affair or not, the Lord only knows. 
But if I did — if my little efforts to preach were in- 
strumental in restoring peace, and establishing the 
brethren in the doctrine of the gospel, the Lord be 
praised for it all. 

CHAPTER XVI. 

As I have stated in a preceding chapter, in 1868 
I was called to the pastoral care of the church at 
Grayville. During the summer I lived in that vicin- 
ity, and when I was at home, we had meetings at a 
school house known as the Cole School House, 
every Wednesday night. We had very pleasant 
meetings at this little school house, and there grew 
to be a wonderful interest among the people of that 
neighborhood on the subject of religion. Our 
Church received and baptized quite a number dur- 
ing the spring, summer, and fall, at that place, and 
the revival spirit of the church seemed to be very 
attractive to other churches and ministers. Our 



-_6 7 - 

congregations were large and enthusiastic, and it 
seemed as if I had as much evidence of divine 
approbation, in my feeble efforts to preach to the 
people in that community, as I have ever had in my 
ministry. I have felt many times in my life that in 
some respects my best days were the days spent in 
that community, for I was young and active both 
in body and mind, and thought nothing of doing a 
hard day's work on a farm during the long days of 
summer, and then going to meeting and preaching 
at night. 

During the summer I was challenged by a young 
Campbellite preacher, who was familiarly known 
as Dick Flower, to engage with him in a joint 
discussion on some of the points of difference 
between the Campbellite doctrine and that of our 
people, which resulted in a three days' debate at the 
Baptist Church in Grayville, and by the old people 
of that country, that debate has been more clearly 
and distinctly remembered, perhaps, than any other 
debate that was ever held in that part of the country 
by me. I thought then and do now, that so far as 
arguments are concerned, neither of us did anything 
very great in that debate, however, the people 
seemed to concede the victory to me. I have 
thought many times that it was not so much because 
of my skill in arguing my points, and defending 
them, as the manner of my opponent's treatment of 
me. However, I have studied the doctrine of the 
Campbellite people a great deal since then, and 
have had a great many debates with them, and I 



—68— 

think I know as well what they teach as they do 
themselves, so far as their fundamental principles 
are concerned. I have had opportunities of learn- 
ing their doctrine having had about nineteen public 
discussions with them. 

I remember on one occasion of going to hear one 
of their men preach, at the solicitation of a cousin of 
mine, who was a member of that church. When 
we came to the place my cousin introduced me to 
his preacher, Brother Williams, stating to him that 
I was a Baptist preacher. During the discourse, 
the preacher referred to that religion which has 
doubts and fears, in a manner that is very common 
to all the preachers of that sect; stating that he had 
no use for that religion, and illustrating it by saying 
that he knew that there was such a place as the city 
of Carmi, Illinois, because he lived there — it was 
his home ; and that he had heard that there was such 
a city as New Orleans ; but that he had never seen 
the city of New Orleans, but he said he doubted the 
existence of the city of Carmi as much as he did the 
city of New Orleans, and by the same course of 
reasoning he doubted the existence of God, the 
death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as 
much as he did the pardon of his own sins. He 
went on to state, during his discourse, that the sin- 
ner must take four steps in order to get into Christ, 
and that he had scripture for each one. He must 
believe — that is the first step the sinner must take, 
as the Apostle says, "With the heart man believeth 
unto righteousness," not into it, but unto it. That 



-6 9 - 

is the first step. The second step is that he must 
repent. The Apostle says, "Godly sorrow worketh 
repentance unto," — not into, — "salvation." The 
third step is confession. The Apostle says, "With 
the mouth confession is made unto" — not into, — 
"salvation." So that a man may take all three of 
these steps and not be in Christ unless he goes on 
and takes the fourth step. The fourth one is bap- 
tism. The apostle says, "As many of us as have 
been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." 
These are the four steps necessary to get into Christ, 
and no man gets there unless he takes them. This 
was the position of the preacher. He further stated 
that when we come to talk about what was enjoined 
upon us in the New Testament, we should never 
distinguish between essentials and non-essentials. 
He said that there were no non-essentials in the 
New Testament. Everything that we were required 
to do was essential. After he got through, an old 
gentlemen by the name of Smith, with whom I was 
acquainted, and who thought his preacher was very 
able, turned to me, the preacher standing behind 
him looking over his shoulder into my face, so that 
it was impossible for me to say a word without his 
hearing me, and asked me what I thought of his 
preacher. I said, "He is quite a talker, but I am 
sorry for him, for he cannot be saved, if what he 
preached to-night is true." The old gentleman 
seemed surprised that I should speak so, and turning 
his head and seeing the preacher, he stepped aside 
to let the preacher speak for himself. I told the 



— 7 o- 

preacher I was sorry for him, for if he had preached 
the truth to-night he never could be saved. I told 
him the only hope for him was that he had not 
preached the truth, and I thought that so far his 
chances were very favorable, for I did not believe 
he had preached he truth. He called on me for an 
explanation, and I asked him if there were no non- 
essentials in the Bible; he said there were not, and I 
asked him if the Bible did not say "Hope that is seen 
is not hope." He said it did. "Well," said I, 
"you stated that you doubted the existence of God, 
and the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, 
as much as you did the pardon of your sins, and 
Peter said, "Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, 
and be ready always to give to every man thatasketh 
you, a reason of the hope that is in you, with meek- 
ness and fear." Now, sir, will you please tell me 
how it is that you have a hope at all, when you 
already knew everything? He said it was growing 
late, and if I would come down to-morrow he would 
explain it to me. I did not go, and so he never 
explained it. 



— 7 I— 

CHAPTER XVII. 

In the spring of 1S69, my wife being in very poor 
health, I sold out almost everything I had, except a 
team, and we took a trip to Wisconsin for her health. 
We were gone about six or eight weeks. We landed 
at Woodstock, Richland county, where we were 
acquainted with perhaps half a dozen families. 
There was no church in that country, that I knew of, 
but I was. told of an old gentleman who lived some 
seven or eight miles away, up in the hills, who would 
preach some six or seven miles from Woodstock the 
following Sunday. A number of friends and myself 
went to his meeting, and when I was introduced to 
him, he insisted that I should preach, but I declined 
because it was his appointment, and I preferred not 
to say anything until after he was through. He did 
not preach a great while, neither did he preach very 
much. I could not have told from his discourse that 
he was a Baptist, because he did not touch upon any 
doctrinal points, affirmatively or negatively, by which 
I could judge him. When he was through, seeing 
that he had been very brief, I concluded to talk 
awhile, which I did, and the people seemed to be 
amazed, and at the same time they setmed to appro- 
bate what I said. I tried, in my little effort, as far 
as I went, to preach the doctrine that I believed, both 
affirmatively and negatively, and at the close of my 
remarks, I overheard a voice saying, "I could sit 
here all evening." I found that there were some 
people in that country who loved to hear the Baptist 



— 72— 

doctrine preached. At the little town, Woodstock, 
where I made my headquarters, there was no meet- 
ing-house to preach in, but there was a large school- 
house, and those who preached at all in that place 
preached there. I found that it was occupied every 
Sunday, so that it would be impossible for me to 
have an appointment even one Sunday in the month. 
But as I had no other place to go to, and no other 
brethren to visit, and could preach about as well at 
one time as another, I concluded to have meeting at 
this school house every Sunday at 5 o'clock P.M. 
This I did, as long as I remained in that country. 
At my meetings I had good, interesting congrega- 
tions. Other people seemed to hold me at a dis- 
tance, I thought, and I knew of no reason for it only 
that I preached a doctrine that they did not believe. 
I have learned, long ago, that the only way you can 
please some people, is either to preach nothing, or 
else preach their doctrine. I did not feel disposed 
to do either, and on one occasion, a friend of mine 
gave me word that the school officers who had con- 
rol of the house, had made threats that they would 
turn me out, and not allow me to preach there any 
longer, after I filled my next appointment. This did 
not embarrass me, for I knew that when they turned 
me out of their school house, they would be turned 
out also. It was as much my school house as it was 
theirs. So I went on and filled my appointment the 
next Sunday evening to a crowded house, and the 
parties who were supposed to have made the threats 
were present, and when I got through, I published a 



-73— 

meeting for the next Sunday evening, and no person 
said a word. I felt sometimes, that these were efforts 
to intimidate, as I have often felt during my life, 
especially when I was young. The next Sunday 
evening, there were two Methodist ministers present, 
and they sat up right next to me. I felt certain that 
they were brought there for the purpose of intimidat- 
ing me, and I still think that was their object. But. 
instead of it having the desired effect, it seemed to 
arouse an ambition in me to be plainer, and to take 
my positions more boldly than if they had not been 
there. When I was through, they went away, and 
said nothing to me, and from that time on, I held 
my meetings as long as I stayed. There was an 
urgent request for me to remain and constitute a 
church at that place, but I felt that, while I might 
be able to find material enough for the constitution 
of a church, it would do no good, unless it had some 
one to keep it together afterwards. And as I did 
not intend to remain there, I did not encourage the 
organization of a church. 

I heard of another preacher in that country, and I 
traveled three or four days, taking my wife and little 
children in a one-horse wagon on the hunt of him, 
but I never found him. When I gave up the hunt 
my wife had improved in her health a great deal, and 
as I was eager to get back among my people at home, 
I came back to Southern Illinois, sowed a crop of 
wheat, and went to work, preaching among my 
churches, until the spring of 1870. I then lived in 
the neighborhood of old Long Prairie church, and 



—74— 

during the summer a revival broke out in that church, 
which lasted all summer, and during harvest, and 
through the busy times with the crops, we had meet- 
ings there every Wednesday evening at 5 o'clock, or 
at night, and it was astonishing, that right in the 
busiest time of the year, when we came in sight of 
that meeting house, to see the whole side of the hill 
covered with buggies, wagons and people, and when 
we met some of the old sisters, we would hear them 
say, "It has been a long week." During that sum- 
mer there were quite a number of accessions to the 
church, among which were three brethren, who 
to-day, are ordained ministers of the gospel. I look 
back to that season as one of the bright spots in my 
ministerial life. Everything was lovely. The church 
was all in peace. Brethren and friends loved to meet 
and greet each other, and there was nothingtodo but 
to preach the gospel, enjoy all its comforts, and obey 
all its injunctions. Surely we did sit together in 
heavenly places in Christ Jesus, during that time. 






—75— 
CHAPTER XVIII. 

In the year 1873, I had three public debates — two 
of them were with the Campbellites, one at Paris, 
Illinois, with a gentleman by the name of William 
Holt, and one at Mount Pleasant Church, White 
County, Illinois, with a gentleman by the name of 
Stone, and the other with Elder Ed. Hearde, who 
denied the doctrine of the resurrection. From the 
day that our churches closed their doors against the 
non-resurrection doctrine, until 1873, Elder Trainer 
made his visits among the people in the bounds of 
our churches, and held his meetings at private houses 
and from what we could learn, he always challenged 
our brethren to debate on the subject of the resur- 
rection. So finally Elder David Stuart, who was 
pastor of the Little Wabash church, hailed him, as 
he was passing his house one Monday morning, and 
told him that his challenge was accepted, and the 
result was that we debated two and one-half days, at 
Elder Trainer's Church, in Jasper County, Illinois. 
After that debate closed, Elder Trainer's visits to 
White County, among the churches in our bounds 
ceased. But I do not wish to dismiss this subject 
without giving a few hints, at least, of the character 
of the debate, and the man with whom I debated 
with at that time. Elder Ed. Hearde came to the 
debate with a written endorsement, signed by his 
church at home in the state of Indiana, (I believe 
Johnson County,) as a member of Bethlehem church 
of Predestinarian Baptists, and that Bethlehem 



- 7 6- 

church was a member of Bethlehem Association, 
and that Elder Hearde was the Moderator of that 
Association. At the time I debated with him, he 
was perhaps sixty years of age, and had engaged in a 
large number of debates. He was a very shrewd 
man, naturally. His advantages as to education, 
perhaps were limited. There was a circumstance 
told of him once, that I will relate. During the 
time of the Maine Liquor Law campaign, in the 
state of Indiana, in 1853, or '54, there were a great 
many stump speakers over the country, on both sides 
of the issue. It was said that whenever a man came 
into Elder Heard's country to speak in favor of the 
Maine Liquor Law, that Elder Hearde was in the 
habit of putting in his presence and replying to 
the speaker. This was his course until the tem- 
perance people got tired of him. But on one occa- 
sion, they were having an extraordinary meeting in 
that neighborhood, and Mr. Cary, of Ohio, who 
afterwards ran for Vice-President, with Peter 
Cooper, was to be the speaker of the day. When 
Elder Hearde arrived at the grounds on that occa- 
sion, he was met by one of his opponents, who told 
him that if he would reply to Mr. Cary, he would 
give him five dollars. He readily accepted the of- 
fer, saying, "Give me the money." The gentleman 
did so, and Elder Hearde told him that now he must 
come and introduce him to the speaker, Mr Cary. 
He did so with that degree of politeness and dignity 
customary on such occasions, the gentleman stating 
to Mr. Cary that Mr. Hearde was an old Baptist 



-77- 

preacher, and would reply to his speech to-day. Mr 
Cary readily assented to the arrangement, and during 
his speech he frequently referred to the fact that he 
must be careful, because he was to be followed by 
a minister of the gospel, who, of course was well 
posted aud would scrutinize his speech very severely. 
While Mr. Cary made use of such expressions rather 
ironically, yet it was true that when he closed his 
speech, Elder Hearde arose with the five 'dollars in 
his hand, flourishing it in such a manner that the 
people could all see it, and told them that the way 
he came by that money was that a gentleman had 
given it to him to reply to the speech that we had 
just heard, and that all he had to say concerning 
that matter was that fools and their money soon part. 
So he put it into his pocket, and immediately began 
to review the speech. The result was that even Mr. 
Cary did not wait to hear him through. 

Elder Hearde, in his debate with me, treated me 
very courteously, I being quite a young man while 
he was much older. He undertook to prove in his 
affirmation that the people of God are a seed which 
existed in heaven prior to the formation of the Adam 
man, and that they would all go back to heaven where 
they came from. I do not pretend to say that I have 
his proposition verbatim, but this is the substance of 
it, and he led out in the opening of that question, 
with a speech for one hour, in which he made a num- 
ber of scripture quotations to show that God's people 
were a seed. He quoted this among others: "A seed 
shall serve him and it shall be counted to the Lord 



- 7 S^ 

for a generation." And "In thee and thy seed shall 
all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." "I will 
put enmity between thee and the woman, and be- 
tween thy seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy 
head and it shall bruise his heel." Quite a number 
of other texts of this character were introduced in 
his first speech, without a great many comments. 
He stated that he intended to merely lay his planks 
down loose, in this speech, and that he would come 
with his hatchet and nails and fasten them down in 
his next speech. In my reply to his arguments on 
these proof-texts, to prove the pre-existence of 
God's people, I simply admitted that I believed that 
the Lord's people were a seed, and that was all that 
he had proven by these texts. I was not here to 
deny that God's people were a seed, but that I was 
here to deny that they had an eternal existence, and 
that there was not a single text in all the catalogue 
of texts that he had quoted that said anything about 
the pre-existence of the people mentioned in his 
proof-texts. I thought then, and do yet, however, 
that he did about as well in proving that doctrine as 
any man could do. I felt very confident that he could 
not prove it by the Bible. He finally inquired 
where the Lord got his people, if they did not etern- 
ally exist. I replied that he made them. That 
I knew of no people as the subjects of eternal sal- 
vation, only the people that God made. That 
the Bible frequently spoke of the fact that God 
made his people. "Thy maker is thine husband," 
is one expression of Scripture, and the very 



-79— 

idea of a maker is the best inferential testimony 
that they must have been made. Again, I do 
not believe that they had an eternal existence, be- 
cause it was said that Adam was the first man, I 
could not conceive of the idea of there being a man 
before him, and not only was he the first man, but 
that he was made of the dust of the ground. This 
was the man that I believed had transgressed the 
law of God, and fallen under its curse, and became 
subject to .death, and all the miseries consequent 
upon sin, and that they were the subjects of salva- 
tion. But I will not stop here to give a full detail 
of the arguments, any more than to say that I be- 
came more fully convinced during that discussion 
against the doctrine of the pre-existence of God's 
people than I had ever been. I believe that God 
eternally knew His people, and that it was as easy 
a matter for Him to know them before they existed 
as it was afterwards. I believed then, more than 
that, that God fore-knew His people, and how He 
fore-knew His people and they have an eternal exist- 
ence I could not understand, for I thought to fore- 
know a thing was to know it before-hand, that is, to 
know it before it was, so if He fore-knew His people, 
He knew them before they were, and the Apostle 
says, "Whom He fore-knew them He also did pre- 
destinate to be conformed to the image of His son." 
It would be impossible for Him to fore-know them, 
or to know them before they were, if they eternally 
existed. He finally, however, made this remark, 
that if I would admit the pre-existence of God's 



8o- 



people, he did not ask me any boot on the question 
of the ressurrection. So I say to-day, that the non- 
ressurrection doctrine is the legitimate consequence, 
and the inevitable result of the doctrine of the pre- 
existence of the children of God, or the doctrine of 
eternal children. Men may talk all they wish about 
the doctrine of eternal vital union, eternal children, 
eternal justification, and so forth, but I do not believe 
in the eternal existence of God's people ; neither do 
I believe in eternal vital union. Now, if a man 
admits the doctrine of eternal children, he may as 
well admit the doctrine of non-ressurrection. We 
discussed this proposition a day and a half, after 
which I affirmed that there will be, in the future, a 
ressurrection of the bodies, both of the just and the 
unjust, of Adam's posterity, some to eternal life, 
and some to everlasting punishment. I give the 
substance of the proposition from memory, for I do 
not remember it verbatim. I argued that ressurrec- 
tion meant to restore to life that which once had 
life, and that to put one man down and take another 
up in its place, would be no ressurrection, but to lay 
one body down in death, and then take that same 
body up alive, is a ressurrection, and nothing short of 
it is. I believed then, and do to-day, that it was the 
Adam sinner that was saved, the same man that was 
made of the dust of the ground. I did not then 
believe, nor do I yet, that any part of him came from 
heaven. I believe that the very same body that goes 
to the grave will be precisely the same body that will 



-8i 



be raised from the dead and finally taken to heaven. 
I contended for that doctrine in this discussion. 

As before stated, after this discussion was over, 
the visits of those men ceased among the churches 
in our part of the country, and as I will give another 
chapter concerning the doctrine of the ressurrection 
of the body, I will close this chapter, stating that on 
the question of the ressurrection, our churches have 
been blessed with peace in our section of the country 
ever since that debate. 



CHAPTER XIX. 

During the year 1871, and '72, I began to get 
acquainted with the brethren of Wabash District 
Association. I visited their Association once or 
twice, and visited a number of their churches, and 
found that among them and some of their correspon- 
dents, the question was being agitated as to what it 
is that is born again in the work of regeneration. 
Some of the preachers of that, and some other Asso- 
ciations, differed so widely about it that they were 
accused of taking positions that were very extreme. 
One man was accused of claiming that the body was 
no part of the child of God. Another denied any 
distinction of soul and body, claiming that the man 
that was born again, to use their own language, was 
the man that ate bacon and cabbage. There might 
have been other issues among the people, but about 
that time I met a man by the name of G. W. Paine 



82 

who denied the doctrine that the soul was born again 
in the work of regeneration, and made light of the 
idea that any part of the man went to heaven when 
the body died. The first hint that I ever had from 
him on this question, was in a conversation which I 
overheard between him and another brother in Paris, 
Illinois. As soon as I had an opportunity, I asked 
him if he believed that there was a distinction be- 
tween the soul and body, and if he believed that the 
soul went to heaven when the body died. He held 
forth the idea that man went to the grave and re- 
mained there until the resurrection, and that if he 
went to the grave he did not go to heaven. He de- 
nied being a soul-sleeper, but at the same time in 
speaking of the state of the dead, he had the w r hole 
man in the grave. He said when the Bible said soul 
it meant man, and when it said man it meant soul. 
According to his own definitions, I sometimes called 
him soul-sleeper, and sometimes accused him of 
believing that man had no soul, the latter, I think 
perhaps is the most proper name. He also held 
forth the idea that the flesh and bones of Jesus 
Christ had existed from all eternity, and that no part 
of the body of the Savior was taken from the Virgin 
Mary except the blood. In conversation with him, 
I asked him this question: "Jesus Christ said to 
the thief on the cross, 'To-day shalt thou be with 
me in paradise.' Where is paradise of which the 
Savior spoke on that occasion?" He said it was 
the grave. I then asked him, "If the grave was 
paradise, why would not both the thieves be in para- 



-83- 

dise when they went to the grave?" This question 
he did not answer, if I remember correctly. He 
finally began to make visits among the churches and 
country where I lived, and as is always the case, 
when heresy is introduced among a people, he had 
a following. I opposed his doctrine, and I also 
opposed him as a man. Finally the churches 
refused to open their doors to him to preach, be- 
cause he advocated the doctrine that I have already 
mentioned in this chapter. During the agitation of 
this question among our brethren, I became more 
discouraged in the ministry than at any other one 
thing that could have happened. I did not believe 
that doctrine. I believed that there was a distinction 
of soul and body in the man, and that the soul was 
born again in the work of regeneration, that it went 
to heaven at the dissolution of the body, and that in 
the resurrection, the body would be changed and 
taken to heaven, and that soul and body thus united 
would make a complete man, capable of enjoying 
heaven with all that heaven means. I still believe that 
doctrine. There has never been a moment of time 
when I thought on that subject that these have not 
been my sentiments, and so far as the pre-existence of 
the children of God is concerned, I never have be- 
lieved that they actually existed. I have believed that 
God has known them from all eternity, and that it was 
as easy for Him to know them before they existed as 
afterwards. I believe that God made his people, 
both soul and body, and I have never believed that 
he brought any part of them down from heaven. 



-8 4 - 

I also believe that Jesus Christ took everything from 
the Virgin Mary, his mother, that pertains to his 
humanity. I do not now, nor have I ever believed 
In the pre-existence of human nature. Because I 
contended for what I believed on these things, and 
opposed what I did not believe, some of the brethren 
thought very hard of me, especially the admirers of 
Mr. Paine. One man who had been, and is yet a 
friend of mine, spoke to me on one occasion con- 
cerning the matter about this way: "Let me tell 
you as a friend, that when you undertake to fight 
Elder Paine, you are killing yourself. You are 
jealous of him — that is the trouble. He can beat 
you preaching. He does not even leave you the 
bone to gnaw on, that is the reason you are opposed 
to him." I replied to him that if my opposition to 
Elder Paine and his doctrine killed me, to just let me 
die. I expected to oppose him and his doctrine as 
long as I was able to do so, and thought it necessary. 
His doctrine is heresy, and it is not good for the 
church. 



-35- 
CHAPTER XX. 

There were a few occurences that took place be- 
tween Elder Paine and myself that I wish now to 
notice. In he first place, when I first met him, and 
had the conversation with him in Paris, Illinois, I 
asked him if he preached that doctrine wherever he 
went. He said he did, and I asked him if it did 
not cause trouble wherever it was preached, and he 
said it had caused a great deal of trouble. I told 
him I did not want him to come into my country 
and preach that doctrine, for we had had all the 
trouble there on different doctrines that we cared 
about. He remarked that this was a free country, 
and that he had the right to go where he wished. I 
told him that if he would just admit that he was not 
a Baptist, and wanted to preach in my country, I 
would use my influence to get him a house and a 
congregation at any time. But for him to come 
there and preach that doctrine and claim it as Bap- 
tist doctrine was something that I did not want. 
He never had at that time been in our country. 
This was the first time I had ever seen him. Finally 
the first thing I knew, by corresponding with some 
of the brethren whose names he had gotten, there 
had been a list of appointments published for him, 
and he had filled them. I was away from home 
at one time some two or three weeks, and when I 
got back home, I found that he had been in a num- 
ber of our churches, and had preached. The breth- 
ren all seemed to think that he was very able. I 



—86— 

heard some of them speak of him, as to his ability, 
in the most favorable terms. None of them seemed 
to have discovered that he was not sound. I ques- 
tioned several of them as to his doctrinal positions, 
but I found that they had not detected anything 
wrong. I felt that, perhaps, he was a policy man, 
and preferred to ingratiate himself into the good 
feelings and confidence of our people before he ad- 
vanced his doctrinal ideas. But there was one good 
old brother in the ministry who had heard him, who, 
I felt confident, would be as likely to know whether 
he was all right or not as any man in our associa- 
tion. That was Elder John Hunsinger. I was eager 
to see him, so I finally went to his meeting. I ar- 
rived at his house on Friday night, and stayed over 
night with him, and had a good opportunity to con- 
verse with him concerning Elder Paine. I intro- 
duced the subject by saying: "Well, Uncle Johnny, 
I suppose you have had a new preacher visiting 
among you." He said, "Yes, we have had a visi- 
tor. Elder Paine has been among us." I asked, 
"Well, how do you like him ?" I saw that he 
rather shook his head, and I felt happy to think 
that Uncle Johnny had detected him. I felt confi- 
dent that he knew that Elder Paine was a heretic. 
He remarked, after shaking his head significantly, 
that we might as well open our doors to Elder 
Trainer or any other heresy, for the doctrine that 
Elder Paine preaches is no better than the doctrine 
taught by Elder Trainer. That afforded me a 
great deal of consolation. I have always had a 



_8 7 - 

great desire that our brethren dwell in peace, and 
that they advocate the doctrine of the Bible. 

Among other things that Elder Paine preached, 
besides the no-soul doctrine, as I have stated in an- 
other chapter, was that the flesh and bones of Christ 
and his human nature had existed in heaven from all 
eternity. I had about as little use for this as for the 
no-soul doctrine, or the non-resurrection doctrine, 
and I had frequent conversations w'.th him upon that 
subject. He seemed very ready to accuse me of be- 
ing jealous of him because I was so bitterly opposed 
to the doctrine he was advocating. I could not con- 
scientiously be still, and hold my peace, and let 
that doctrine overrun our part of the country. At 
onetime when he came through, hehad an appoint- 
ment at my church in Grayville to preach one ser- 
mon at night. He came to my house that morning, 
and remained until the next morning. We had am- 
ple time for considerable conversation during the 
day. At the supper table he made the remark to 
me that he had one request to make, and that was 
that if he should preach anything that night that I 
did not endorse, I should speak to him privately 
about it, and say nothing publicly upon the subject. 
I told him that we had tried that course with some 
of those men who denied the resurrection until they 
had greatly the advantage of us, and that I had con- 
cluded that if a man preached anything in my pul- 
pit, to my people, that I did not believe to be true, 
I should expose it at once publicly, so that the Bap- 
tists might be aware of the fact that I did not be- 



-8&— 



lieve it. We went to church that night, and I felt 
confident of the fact that he was under the impress- 
ion that if he should preach anything that I did not 
endorse, I would reply to him. It was the only time 
that I ever heard him preach. I had never heard 
him up to that time, and I have never heard him 
since. He took a text and preached a good dis- 
course, which was very comforting to myself and 
my people. I felt so proud of it, that when he was 
through I arose and publicly endorsed it, and told 
the people that was just what my people believed. 
We sang a song and the people came forward and 
gave him the hand as an evidence that they believed 
his preaching. He said nothing about the contro- 
verted points of which we had been talking, but some 
time after that, on two or three different occasions, 
I was plucked to one side by my brethren, and asked 
if I had undergone a change upon that subject. I 
told them no, I believed just what I always had, but 
did not ask them at first why they asked me such a 
question, until it had been repeated several times. 
Then I began to make inquiries and was told that 
Elder Paine himself had gone away and told the . 
people that he preached the eternal flesh and bones 
of Jesus in my pulpit, and that I and my brethren 
endorsed it, and that I called on them to come for- 
ward and give him their hand as a token that they 
endorsed his doctrine. I did not feel much surprised 
when I was told that Elder Paine had so wilfully 
misrepresented what I had said, for he had prevari- 
cated so many times, while he was in our part of the 



country, on different occasions, that I had lost confi- 
dence in his veracity. I was not alone in that view. 
A number of other brethren soon found out that it 
would not do to depend too much on his word. 

He was at Mount Pleasant Church on one occasion, 
and the brethren requested him to come out on those 
points plainly in his Sunday discourse, so they would 
know just where he stood, but he politely declined 
and preached a good sermon, that I suppose no 
Primitive Baptist would make any seiious objections 
to. But afterwards he preached at a brother's house 
in the neighborhood, and in his discourse stated that 
he could prove by the Scriptures that Jesus Christ was 
on earth three times before he was born of the Vir- 
gin Mary, and that he ate meat, and after his meet- 
ing was over he walked around among the brethren, 
and seemed to feel very much elated, with the 
thought that all those brethren were going to take his 
doctrine. I think, however, that this was the last 
time that he was ever in our country, until the doors 
of our churches were closed against him. I was told 
that he thought very hard .of me for opposing him in 
that country, but I feel thankful that his preaching, 
with all the zeal and ability that he possessed, did 
not effect a division among our people, and perhaps 
very few if any of the brethren of the Skillet Fork 
Association fell in with his doctrines, concerning 
what it is that is born again in the work of regenera- 
tion in time, and the pre-existence of the flesh and 
bones of Jesus Christ. 

So far as preacher jealousy is concerned, I confess 



— 9° — 

that I was jealous of Elder Paine. It did hurt me 
to see good brethren falling in with him, and to see 
that they were his warm admirers. I think I would 
be jealous of any other man under the same circum- 
stances, and I should do very little to encourage 
them to come among my people. I did not believe 
that man is all soul, nor that he is all body, but that 
he is possessed of both soul and body, I believe 
that still, and I think that is the doctrine held by the 
Regular Baptist people, as a denomination. I do 
not know how many sorts of criticism were made to 
the doctrine that there is a distinction between soul 
and body. One man, for instance, would ask, 
"What is the soul of man?" seeming to think that if 
we could not tell just what it is, that there certainly 
is no such thing. Another would ask, "Did you 
ever read in the Bible of a never-dying soul?" Of 
course no man ever read that expression in the Bible» 
but we do read in the Bible, in very plain and un- 
mistakable terms, that the soul survives the body, 
and the fact that we are not able to find a Bible defi- 
nition of the soul, in so many words, is not to be 
taken as an evidence that there is no such thing. 
Perhaps those same men would be just as badly puz- 
zled, many of them, if they were called on to tel* 
what the body of man is, and give all its parts and 
minutia. They would be just as badly puzzled if 
they were called on to tell what is the mind of man. 
and how is it connected with the body, and yet we 
know that man has a mind, and the fact that we can 



—9 1— 

not explain anything, is no evidence against its truth- 
fulness. The Bible says soul and boyd, and it 
always has said it. 



CHAPTER XXI. 

In the month of February, 1881, I held a three 
days' discussion with a gentleman by the name of 
Williams,. in Franklin County, Illinois, on the fol- 
lowing proposition: "The Scriptures teach that 
there will be a general resurrection of the bodies of 
all the sons and daughters of the first man Adam, or 
natural man, some of them to endless life, and some 
to endless punishment." Mr. Williams was a 
Universalist, and while he professed to believe in 
the salvation of "all men," as he said, he did not 
believe that Adam's posterity would be saved. In 
this chapter, I shall give an outline of the arguments 
I used in affirmation of the proposition stated above, 
without undertaking to give any of his arguments 
whatever. I will proceed : 

Definitions: By the term Scriptures, I mean the 
books of the Old and New Testaments of the com- 
mon version, known as King James' translation. 

By the term teach, I mean to impart the knowl- 
edge of. I also mean by the term teach to give 
intelligence concerning; to tell impressively; to 
exhibit. 

By the term general, I mean the resurrection will 
embrace all mankind. 



— 9 2— 

By the term resurrection, I mean a rising again ; 
resumption of vigor. 

By the term bodies, I mean persons; human 
beings, I mean the body that God formed of the 
dust of the ground. 

By the term sons and daughters, I mean the entire 
progeny of Adam, whether male or female. 

By the expression first man, or Adam, or natural 
man, I mean the man who is possessed of soul, flesh 
and blood, that we see moving about here in the 
world, that sickens and dies, and that is a visible, 
tangible human being. 

By the expression, some to endless life, I mean 
that in the future state they will be raised a spiritual 
body, which is that they will be made spiritual, and 
that they will not be natural then like the first Adam, 
but spiritual like the second Adam, and that their 
life in that spiritual and glorified state will never 
end. 

By the expression, endless punishment, I mean a 
punishment that will never cease. As to the nature 
of the life or the eternal punishment, I shall have 
nothing to say, as that is not a part of the issue. 
The issue is whether they will be raised to eternal 
punishment or not, and that they will be, is what I 
am to affirm, and what he is to deny. The expres- 
sions of Scripture relative to this subject are, pun- 
ishment, torment, death, damnation, shame and 
everlasting contempt, or separation, and while the 
term death is frequently employed I believe it to be 



—93— 

death in the sense oi separation, and not that they 
possess no vitality. This state will be a state of 
wretchedness and misery that will never cease. 

My first argument is based on the fact that Adam, 
the natural, earthly man, is the man that God made 
or created in his image, and after his likeness, and 
that he is the man of the Bible, the man proper. To 
prove this I quote Genesis, ii ; 7. "And the Lord 
God formed man out of the dust of the ground and 
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man 
became a living soul." I Corinthians, xv ; 45, 46, 
47. "And so it is written, The first man Adam was 
made a living soul; the last Adam was made a 
quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which 
is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward 
that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, 
earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven." 
Again, Genesis, i- 26. "And God said, let us make 
man in our image, after our likeness, and let him 
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the 
fowls of the air, and over the cattle, and over the 
earth and every living thing that creepeth upon the 
earth." Genesis, v- 1. "This is the book of the 
generations of Adam. In the day that God created 
man, in the likeness of God made He him." Male 
and female created he them ; and blessed them and 
called their name Adam, in the day when they were 
created." I claim that these texts of scripture fully 
sustain tbe arguments that I have made, that Adam 
is the man proper, the man of the Bible. 

My second argument is that the people of God 



—94— 

were made of the dust of the ground. To prove this 
argument, I quote Isaiah lxiv-8-9. "But now, O 
Lord, thou art our Father; we are the clay and thou 
our potter: and we all are the work of thy hand. Be 
not wroth very sore, O Lord, neither remember ini- 
quity forever; behold, see, we beseech thee we are 
thy people." From this text we learn that these 
were the people of God. They were clay; they 
were the work of God's hand. They never came 
from heaven. Job, xxxiii-4-7. "The spirit of God 
hath made me and the breath of the Almighty hath 
given me life. If thou canst answer me set thy words 
in order before me, stand up. Behold, I am accord- 
ing to thy wish in God's stead: I also am formed 
out of the clay. Behold my terror shall not make 
thee afraid, neither shall my hand be heavy upon 
thee." I, perhaps, introduced several other scrip- 
tures in the discussion, in support of that argument 
that it would be impossible to crowd into this chapter. 
My object is to give an outline of my arguments so 
that the reader may see the position that I occupied. 

My third argument is that the only people that ever 
inhabited this world as a people, are the earthy. 
Adam and his progeny, so when we read of man in 
the Bible, we read of the earthy man and his offspring. 

My fourth argument is that the man that is already 
named, and his offspring are the subjects of God's 
address all through the Bible. It was to Adam that 
God gave his law. It was Adam that transgressed 
the law. It is the transgressor that is the sinner, and 
it si the sinner that is subject to damnation. 



-95— 

My fiifth argument is that it is the earthy man that 
dies. Job xxi, 32, 33. "Yet shall he be brought to 
the grave and shall remain in the tomb. The clods 
of the valley shall be sweet unto him, and every 
man shall draw after him, as there are innumerable 
before him." Psalm xxii, 39. "All they that be 
fat upon earth shall eat and worship ; all that go 
down to the dust shall bow before him ; and 
none can keep alive his own soul." Psalm 
Ixxxix, 48. "What man is he that liveth and 
shall not see death ? shall he deliver his soul 
from the grave?" Eccl. i, 3, 4, "What profit 
hath a man of all his labor which he taketh 
under the sun? One generation passeth away, and 
another generation cometh ; but the earth abideth 
forever." Psalm ciii, 10, 16, "He hath not dealt 
with us after our sins ; nor rewarded us after our 
iniquities. For as the heaven is high above the 
earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear 
him, As far as the east is from the west, so far 
hath he removed our transgressions from us. Like 
as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth 
them that fear him. For he knoweth our frame; 
he remembereth that we are dust. As for man his 
days are as grass ; as a flower of the field, so he 
flourisheth. For the wind passeth over it, and it is 
gone ; and the place thereof shall know it no more." 
The last text quoted proves not only that man dies, 
but it proves that he is of the dust of the ground and 
also that he is the object of salvation. From the 
fact it is said that "As far as the east is from the 



- 9 6- 

west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from 
us." This is never done for a people who are not 
interested in salvation. 

My sixth argument is that the earthly Adam in- 
volved his own posteritv in sin and death by his own 
disobedience, and that death is the result of sin. 
For proof of this argument I call attention to 
Romans, v, 12-21. "Wherefore as by one man sin 
entered into the world and death by sin. and so 
death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. 
For until the law sin was in the world : but sin was 
not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless 
death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them 
that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's 
transgression, who is the figure of him that was to 
come. But not as the offense, so also is the free 
gift: for if through the offense of one many be dead, 
much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, 
which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded 
unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, 
so is the free gift : for the judgment was by one to 
condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses 
unto justification. For if by one man's offense 
death reigned by one ; much more they which receive 
abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness shall 
reign in life by one Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by 
the offense of one judgment came upon all men to 
condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one 
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of 
life. For as by one man's disobedience many were 
made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many 



—97- 

be made righteous. Moreover, the law entered, 
that the offense might abound. But where sin 
abounded, grace did much more abound: That as 
sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace 
reign through righteousness unto eternal life by 
Jesus Christ our Lord." In addition to this text, to 
prove my sixth argument, I quote I Corinthians, xv, 
21. "For since by man came death, by man also 
came theresurrection of the dead." Again, Romans, 
vi, 23. "For the wages of sin is death ; but the gift 
of God is eternallife through Jesus Christ our Lord." 
I claim that these Scriptures establish my sixth 
argument, which is that the earthy Adam involved 
his own posterity into sin and death by his own dis- 
obedience, and that death is the result of sin. 

My seventh argument is, that in order to have a 
resurrection there must be a death first, according to 
the definition of resurrection. 

My eighth argument will be the meaning of the 
word grave and resurrection as used in the Bible. 



- 9 8- 
CHAPTER XXII. 

Now I come to the second part of my proposition, 
which is that the bodies of the people, of whom I 
have already been speaking, will be raised from the 
dead. 

My first argument in favor of this part of the pro- 
position, is that the doctrine of the resurrection of 
the body is directly asserted in the Old Testament, 
either in relation to individuals, or in a general man- 
ner. I call attention first to Isaiah xxvi, 19. "Thy 
dead men shall live, together with my dead body 
shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in 
dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the 
earth shall cast out the dead." Again, Daniel, xii, 
1-2. "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the 
great prince which standeth for the children of thy 
people : and there shall be a time of trouble, such as 
never was since there was a nation even to that same 
time : and at that time thy people shall be delivered, 
every one that shall be found written in the book. 
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth 
shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to 
shame and everlasting contempt." Another text, 
Hosea, xiii, 14. "I will ransom them from the 
power of the grave ; I will redeem them from death : 
O death, I will be thy plagues ; O grave, I will be 
thy destruction ; repentance shall be hid from mine 
eyes." Isaiah, xxv, 7-8. " And he will destroy in 
this mountain the face of the covering cast over all 
the people, and the vail that is spread over all nations. 



—99— 

He will swallow up death in victory ; and the Lord 
God will wipe away tears from off all faces ; and the 
rebuke of His people will He take away from off all 
the earth, for the Lord hath spoken it." 

My second argument is that the inspired men in 
the Old Testament times, have expressed their utmost 
confidence in the resurrection of the body. In proof 
of this argument, I quote Psalm xlix, 12-15. "Never- 
theless, man being in honour abideth not: he is like 
the beasts that perish. This their way is their folly : 
yet their posterity approves their sayings. Like 
sheep they are laid in the grave ; death shall feed on 
them ; and the upright shall have dominion over 
them in the morning ; and their beauty shall consume 
in the grave from their dwelling. But God will 
redeem my soul from the power of the grave, for He 
shall receive me." Again, Psalm, xvii, 15. "As 
for me I will behold thy face in righteousness : I 
shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness." 
One more text in support of this argument. Job, xix, 
23-27. " Oh that my words were now written ; Oh 
that they were printed in a book. That they were 
graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock forever. 
For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He 
shall stand at the latter day upon the earth ; and 
though after my skin worms destroy this body yet in 
my flesh shall I see God ; whom I shall see for myself, 
and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though 
my reins be consumed within me." From this 
expression of Scripture I claim that the man of God 
in olden times confidently believed that, although 



IOO- 



they should be mown down with the sickle of death 
and cast into the grave, yet that they would be waked 
up out of that sleep to a life of eternal happiness 
and joy. 

My third argument in favor of this part of the pro- 
position is that the doctrine of the resurrection of the 
body was taught in the Old Testament, because the 
Jews generally believed in the resurrection. I argue 
that if the resurrection had not been taught in the 
Old Testament, that the Jews would not generally 
have held to that faith. But as an evidence that 
they did hold to it I quote Isaiah lxvi, 14. "And 
when ye see this your heart shall rejoice and your 
bones shall flourish like an herb ; and the hand of 
the Lord shall be known toward His servants, and 
His indignation toward His enemies. " Again, 
Matthew, xiv, 1-2. "At that time Herod the 
Tetrarch, heard of the fame of Jesus. And said unto 
his servants, This is John the Baptist ; he is risen 
from the dead ; and therefore mighty works do shew 
forth themselves in him." This expression shows 
that Herod believed in the resurrection of the dead. 
John xi, 23-24. "Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother 
shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know 
that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last 
day." This text shows that Martha believed in the 
resurrection at the last day. Why she believed that 
doctrine if it had not been taught her is a question 
worthy of notice. I claim that the fact that she 
did believe it is good evidence that it was taught by 
the Old Testament Scriptures. 



IOI 



My fourth argument in favor of the resurrection, 
is that the doctrine of the resurrection is true, because 
on various occasions it had the tacit assent of Jesus 
Christ when he was here in the world. Luke xx, 
27-38. " Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's 
brother die, having a wife and he die without chil- 
dren, that his brother should take his wife, and raise 
up seed unto his brother. There were therefore 
seven brethren : and the first took a wife and died 
without children. And the second took her to wife 
and he died childless. And the third took her; and 
in like manner the seven also: and they left no chil- 
dren and died. Last of all the woman died also. 
Therefore in the resurrection whose wife is she ? for 
seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said 
unto them. "The children of this world marry and 
are given in marriage. But they which shall be 
accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the res- 
urrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given 
in marriage. Neither can they die anymore: for 
they are equal unto angels ; and are the children of 
God, being the children of the resuirection. Now 
that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the 
bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, 
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For 
he is not a God of the dead but of the living; for 
all live unto him." It seems to me that if the Sad- 
duces had been correct in their denial of the resur- 
rection of the body, that Jesus would have told them 
so and he did not. "But they which shall be 
accounted worthy to obtain, that world and the resur- 



■I02 



section from the dead neither marry nor are given in 
marriage, neither can they die any more. "There 
are two thoughts in those two expressions. One is 
that Jesus believed that somebody would be worthy 
to obtain that world and the resurrection from the 
dead, and another is that they had died once. Hence, 
I claim that Jesus did not only give his tacit assent 
to the doctrine of the resurrection, but he plainly 
and unmistakably taught it. 

My fifth argument is that the doctrine of the res- 
urrection of the body was positively affirmed by the 
Lord himself. Luke xiv, 13, 14, "But when thou 
makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, 
the blind ; and thou shalt be blessed ; for they can- 
not recompense thee ; for thou shalt be recompensed 
at the resurrection of the just." If there is no resur- 
rection, when will they be recompensed? If there 
is a resurrection of the just, then it must be a resur- 
rection of the body, for it is the body that dies, and 
there is no resurrection without a death first. John, 
v, 28, 29, "Marvel not at this; for the hour is com- 
ing, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear 
his voice, and shall come forth ; they that have 
done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they 
that have done evil, unto the resurrection of 
damnation." Again, John, vi, 54, "Whoso eat- 
eth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal 
life; and I will raise him up at the last day." 

Argument sixth is that the apostles affirmed in 
unmistakable terms the doctrine of the resurrection 
of the body. Acts xxiv, 13, 15, "Neither can they 



— io3— 

prove the things whereof they now accuse me. But 
this I confess unto you, that after the way which 
they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, 
believing all things which are written in the law and 
in the prophets ; and have hope toward God, which 
they themselves also allow, that there shall be a 
resurrection of the dead both of the just and the 
unjust." Romans, viii, io-ii, "And if Christ be in 
you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit 
is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of 
him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, 
He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also 
quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwell- 
eth in you." II Corinthians, i, 8-9. "For we 
would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our 
trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were 
pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch 
that we despaired even of life. But we had the 
sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not 
trust in ourselves, but in God, which raiseth the 
dead." Philippians, iii, 20-21. "For our conver- 
sion is in heaven ; from whence also we look for the 
Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ ; Who shall change 
our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his 
glorious body, according to the working whereby he 
is able even to subdue all things unto himself." I 
claim that these texts prove, with a great many 
others of the same character, in the New Testament, 
that the Apostles affirmed the resurrection of the 
body. 

My seventh argument in favor of this doctrine is 



— IOzJ-— 

founded on the connection of Hosea, xiii, 14 and 
I Corinthians, xv, 54 to 56. The first reads, "I will 
ransom them from the power of the grave. I will 
redeem them from death. O death, I will be thy 
plagues. O grave, I will be thy destruction. Re- 
pentance shall be hid from mine eyes." This was a 
prediction of the resurrection of the body. If it 
was a prediction by the Prophet of the Lord, it was 
something that has taken place since it was pre- 
dicted, or else it is still to take place, or else it must 
be a false prediction. If it has taken place already, 
the Scriptures have said nothing about it, and if it 
has it has been since the writing of the fifteenth 
chapter of I Corinthians. For in that chapter, on 
the text referred to, we have the following language: 
"So when this corruptible shall have put on incor- 
ruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality, 
then shall be brought to pass the saying, that is writ- 
ten. "Death is swallowed up in victory." "The 
sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the 
law." The Apostle in this language is quoting the 
Prophet Hosea that I have already quoted, so it is 
very evident that the prophesy had not been fulfilled 
up to the time that Paul wrote his letter to the Corin- 
thians. I feel confident that it has never been ful- 
filled since that time, so I argue that the Scriptures 
teach that it will be fulfilled. 

My eighth argument is based on three quotations 
from David. Psalm, xvii, 15, which reads, "As for 
me I will behold thy face in righteousness. I shall 
be satisfied when I awake in thy likeness." And 



— io 5 — 

Psalm, xlix, 15, "But God will redeem my soul from 
the power of the grave, for he shall receive me." I 
claim that this was David's confidence, and that 
David did not go to heaven and enjoy all these 
things bodily, when his body died, and left the 
world. As an evidence of that fact, I quote Acts, 
ii, 29 to 35. "Men and brethren, let me freely speak 
unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both 
dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto 
this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing 
that God has sworn with an oath to him, that of the 
fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, He would 
raise up Christ to sit on his throne ; He, seeing this 
before, spoke of the resurrection of Christ ; that His 
soul was not left in hell, neither His flesh did see 
corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof 
we all are witnesses. Therefore, being by the right 
hand of God exalted, and having received of the 
Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he has shed 
forth this which ye now see and hear. For David is 
not ascended into the heavens; but he saith himself, 
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right 
hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool." In this 
text the Apostle Peter says, "For David is not 
ascended into the heavens, but he saith himself, The 
Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand." 
It is very evident here that the Apostle Peter was 
arguing for the truth of the resurrection of Christ, 
and referring to the language of David in which he 
predicted the death of Christ and his resurrection, 
Peter lets us know that David did not have allusion 



io6- 



l-kof 



to himself in this prediction, from the very fact that 
David had not yet been raised from the dead, for in 
the twenty-ninth verse he said "Men and brethren 
let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, 
that he is both dead and buried." What died of 
David, and what is buried? It was his body, "and 
his sepulchre is with us unto this day." Now, if he 
is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us 
to this day, it is very evident that he is not yet raised 
from the dead, therefore he was not speaking of him- 
self in this prediction, but of Jesus Christ. For he 
himself is not yet ascended into heaven which evi- 
dently has allusion to his body, because it is yet in 
the sepulchre, but David's hope was that God would 
redeem his soul from the power of the grave, and 
that he should be waked up in the likeness of God, 
and his hope either was disappointed or will be dis- 
appointed, or else he is yet to be raised from the 
dead, and when we say raised from the dead we 
mean his body. 



— 107 — 
CHAPTER XXIII. 

I now pass on to the third division of my proposi- 
tion, which is that some of these bodies are raised to 
endless life and some to endless punishment. I will 
notice them in their order. First, then I propose to 
show from the Scriptures that some of the bodies will 
have endless life. To prove this, I refer first to Dan 
xiii, 2, which reads, " And many of them that sleep 
in the dust' of the earth shall awake, some to ever- 
lasting life, and some to shame and everlasting con- 
tempt." We have everlasting life in this text, which 
means endless life. This we never hear Universal- 
ists deny. They argue that everlasting life is end- 
less life, or at least they concede that fact. Another 
point in this text is that those who are to be raised to 
everlasting life are those who sleep in the dust of the 
earth. That must be the body. Again, I call 
attention to Luke, xx, 36. " Neither can they die 
any more." This is on the subject of the resurrec- 
tion of the body, and taking the two verses together, 
beginning with the verse 35, we have the following: 
" But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain 
that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither 
marry, nor are given in marriage, neither can they 
die any more." If they cannot die any more, they 
certainly have endless life. There is no evasion of 
that conclusion, and the very fact that they cannot 
die any more signifies that they did die once, and that 
they have been raised to life again, and that now 
they shall not die any more. I claim that I have 



— io8— 

proved a point by this expression that will never be 
answered. Another text that I will introduce is 
Matthew xxv, 46. "And these shall go away into 
everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life 
eternal." I believe that I have, beyond the shadow 
of successful contradiction proven that the bodies 
will live forever. I will add one or two quotations 
and pass on. 1 Corinthians, xv, 51 to 55 inclusive. 
"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all 
sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in 
the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the 
trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised 
incorruptible, and we shall be changed. So when 
this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and 
this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall 
be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death 
is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy 
sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" I argue 
from this text that the bodies will be glorified with 
incorruption and immortality," that is, the bodies of 
the righteous, and if they are incorruptible and 
immortal, they will never die. If they will never 
die it will be because they have life that is endless. 
They cannot die any more. 

I now proceed to notice the last part- of the propo- 
sition, that some of these bodies will suffer endless 
punishment. My arguments upon this part of the 
question will be founded upon Scriptures which I 
shall introduce to prove that there is a future and 
endless punishment. First, I call attention to Mark, 
iii, 28-29: "Verily I say unto you, All sins 



— 109 — 

shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blas- 
phemies wherewithsoever they shall blaspheme ; 
but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost 
hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal 
damnation." I claim that eternal damnation is end- 
less damnation, the same as eternal life is endless 
life. And notice, the sons of men are spoken of 
here, which must be Adam's posterity. I quote 
again, Luke xii : "And I say unto you my friends, be 
not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that 
have no more that they can do, but I will forewarn 
you whom you shall fear. Fear Him which after He 
hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say 
unto you, fear Him.'' From this text we find that 
the hell here is not death. It does not matter how 
Universalists may undertake to evade the conclusion 
this text says it in so many words, and the thing 
killed in this text is the body, and we are warned to 
fear Him that after He has killed the body, is able to 
cast it — the body — into hell. Hence there is a hell 
after death into which the body is certain to go. 
Again, Matthew x, 28, "And fear not them which 
kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul, but 
rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul 
and body in hell." Now, notice it is not only the 
soul that goes to hell according to this text, but it is 
the body as well, and from the language recorded by 
Luke, it is after the death of the body. Again, Mark 
ix, 42 to 48 inclusive. "And whosoever shall offend 
one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better 
for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck 



— no 

and he were cast into the sea. And if thy hand of- 
fend thee cut it off: it is better for thee to enter in- 
to life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell 
into the fire that never shall be quenched : Where 
their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 
And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: It is better 
for thee to enter halt into life, than having two 
feet to be cast into hell into the fire that never shall 
be quenched : Where their worm dieth not, and the 
fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee 
pluck it out: It is better to enter the kingdom of 
God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast 
into hell fire : Where their worm dieth not and the 
fire is not quenched." That is all the argument I 
make from that text. 

This discussion, as I have already stated, lasted 
three days, and I spent one day on each division of 
the proposition, in which I amplified my arguments 
more extensively than I have here, and during the 
time of the discussion, my opponent denied that any 
human body ever went to heaven, stating that if I 
could have proved that one human body ever went 
to heaven that he would yield the point. I quoted 
the text in the second of Acts, where it is said, 
il Neither did His flesh see corruption." In speak- 
ing of the body of Christ, if His flesh did not see cor- 
ruption, it must be incorruptible, and whether it ever 
went to heaven or not, it saw no corruption and 
never will. According to this text, if it should have 
been left in the grave, it is in an incorruptible state 
but the fact that it saw no corruption is the very best 



— Ill — 

evidence that it certainly went to heaven. The last 
time that it was ever seen it was going up, until a 
cloud received it out of the sight of the apostles. 

I have given this brief account of the discussion as 
an evidence that I believe in the doctrine of the res- 
urrection of the body of all the people, and that the 
Scriptures teach that doctrine. I think it is a mat- 
of vital importance, for upon the doctrine of the 
resurrection hangs the destiny of men. It has been 
said that Mr. Williams, my opponent never came 
into that vicinity again. 



CHAPTER XXIV. 

I am now in my thirtieth year in the ministry, and 
my experience is such that I often think if I had my 
time to go over, I could make many improvements, 
but it may be if I had my life to live over again, 
that under the same circumstances, I would do no 
better than I have. My experience as a minister has 
been one peculiar to myself. I have found that no 
other minister I have ever heard talk, has had 
the same experience that I have had. When I first 
began to exercise in public, my recollection is, that 
I was more willing to try to preach than was be- 
coming. I thought many times that I would be glad 
to have an opportunity to try to preach. I was well 
aware of the fact that propriety would dictate for me 
to remain silent, and occupy an humble seat, when 
there were older ministers present ; yet that did not 



112 

suit me all the time, for my desires to exercise in 
public were such, that if I was invited, I was rather 
too willing to get up. I frequently feared that the 
brethren would notice this in me, and I was well 
aware of the fact that it would be against me if they 
did. I very well knew that nothing would hurt a young 
minister quicker in the estimation of his brethren in 
the ministry, as well as the people generally, than 
for him to be too anxious to preach. Yet I was dis- 
tressed frequently in my mind to keep my feelings 
concealed in this particular. I do not know just 
how many years I had this evil to contend with, but 
if the brethren did notice it in me, they seemed to 
treat me well, and encouraged me to exercise my 
gift, and invited me to their meetings, as if they did 
not notice anything wrong. They seemed to put me 
forward, fully as much, or more than they ought to 
have done. I still think that I had as much en- 
couragement from the brethren generally as was due 
me, and that this has been the case all my life. I 
have traveled over a great portion of several states 
and preached among the brethren. I have been re- 
ceived cordially everywhere I have been. After I 
had been preaching a few years, there was quite a 
change in my feelings, so that I became as unwilling 
to preach as I had hitherto been willing. I thought 
for a while that if the brethren would not meet me with 
solicitations, and urgent appeals to come to their 
meetings, I could remain at home very well satisfied, 
not to preach at all. I had the care of churches, and 
when I went to meeting, I really dreaded for 



— 1!3 — 

the moment to arrive that I should begin services. 
I often felt while on my way to church, that it would 
be a great relief to me, if some brother in the min- 
istry would happen to come, who would do the 
preaching. I suffered a great deal in mind from this 
state of feeling. I often wished, that as I must 
preach, I were more willing. I sometimes took my 
case to the Lord, and begged him, that if it was my 
duty to preach, it should not be such a burden to me. 
Frequently, when I went to meeting and found some 
other brethren in the ministry there, I would almost 
become impatient with them, if they insisted on me 
doing the preaching, and when trying to preach, I 
often looked at my watch to see if I had not been 
talking long enough to call it a discourse, and quit. 
This was a fearful state of mind to be in while hav- 
ing to engage in .the ministry almost every day. I fre- 
quently saw brethren in the ministry who seemed 
willing, and who on the first intimation that they 
were to preach, were ready. I sometimes wished 
that I felt that way. I think I know what it is to wish 
very much to preach and not have an opportunity, 
but I also know what it is to be compelled to preach 
when I do not wish to. This frame of mind op- 
pressed me for a few years, I do not remember just 
how long, and then my mind underwent another 
change. I have since felt perfectly passive in the 
hands of the brethren, and perhaps as easy upon 
the subject of preaching as any man among our 
brethren. If I go to meeting and there are other 
brethren present, it is all right with me to try to 



—ii4— 

preach if the brethren say so, and it is all right with 
me to listen to other brethren preach, if the brethren 
say so. I am perfectly willing to try to discharge my 
duty and live at the feet of my brethren, and serve 
them, when they ask me to, in the best manner I can. 
I seldom in late years make any calculations how I 
shall preach. When I was younger I often contem- 
plated a big sermon for special occasions, and about 
as often I failed to do any preaching at all. I have, 
many times, arose to preach when I did not think I 
could say a word, and it seemed I was blessed with 
the presence of the Lord, and the power of his 
might to preach to the edification and encourage- 
ment of his people. In fact matters have seldom 
ever worked out in my experience, either as a 
Christian, or as a minister, according to the plan 
that I have arranged. I have even taken texts think- 
ing that I would present certain points or arguments 
or thoughts during the course of my remarks, and 
would spend my time on an entirely different line of 
thought. I am reminded many times of what I have 
heard other brethren in the ministry say, and that is 
that they never could learn how to preach. I think 
what I have learned might be profitable to younger 
men in the ministry, provided they will study care- 
fully what I have said, and examine themselves care- 
fully. I have studied a great deal about preparing 
notes, or as some men call it sketches, or skeletons 
of sermons, but I have never tried such a thing, and 
I think that I would be very awkward at anything of 
that kind. I feel confident of one thing, that if I 



IIS 



were to write out a sermon and read it, I might be 
as able to read it at one time as another, but I do 
not think I would be a very good judge as to whether 
the Lord was in that matter or not. I have written 
speeches and read them, and my judgment is that if 
I speak extemporaneously, I can tell better whether 
I really have the presence of the Lord or not. I take 
it as an evidence that the Lord is with me when I 
feel a deep and abiding interest on the subject of 
which I treat, and that he is not with me when I feel 
no interest in the subject I am trying to talk about. 
Be that as it may, there is one thing certain, and 
that is that I cannot live contented and neglect the 
ministry. I have tried that, and it does not take a 
great while of running after the world, until I begin 
to feel guilty that I am neglecting my duty as a min- 
ister of the gospel, and as to impressions where to 
go, I am governed by two things. I have visited 
churches where I had no liberty whatever to preach 
.and had no particular enjoyment religiously with the 
people in those churches, although they were good, 
kind and godly people and seemed deeply interested 
in my welfare and comfort, and would insist that I 
visit them again. I never have as great a desire to 
go to such places as to others. Again there are 
places that I have visited, that from the very start 
it seemed that I was blest with excellent liberty, 
and the people were built up and edified under my 
little efforts, and I was made to feel that the Lord 
was present and that surely it was right for me to be 
;there. I would rather feel impressed in my own 



:6- 



mind to go, than to have invitations from the breth- 
ren. However, when it comes to going and visiting 
among the brethren, everywhere, I am inclined to 
go more where they invite me than where they do 
not. And I would advise brethren in the ministry 
who feel that it is their duty to travel a great deal, to 
be governed more by the invitations they get from 
the brethren than by merely the desire to travel. I 
have at times thought that a man might possibly be 
mistaken about it being his duty to go. The'fact that 
a man desires to preach is not always an evidence 
that God has called him to the work of the min- 
istry. Many men have been called to preach who 
have been unwilling to go. In fact, this seems to be 
the rule, that when the Lord first impresses them 
that it is their duty to go and preach, they revolt 
against it until the Lord makes them willing. It is 
a matter of necessity that a minister of the gospel 
should leave his home and travel about the world to 
preach the . gospel. It never was intended of the 
Lord that men should volunteer to preach the gospel 
but that He Himself would call them forth. 



-117- 
CHAPTER XXV. 

There are two or three things in the work of the 
ministry that I have noticed among our brethren, and 
I would love to see them abandoned by our people. 
While I have been what our brethren usually term 
a doctrinal preacher, yet I am opposed to the idea of 
our brethren in setting forth and defending their dis- 
tinguishing principles, pursuing a course that will 
wound the. feelings of people of other denominations. 
I have heard men preach who, I thought, were very 
rough in their expressions about other people. The 
idea of telling a man that the reason he does not 
understand the doctrine of the Bible as we do, is 
because he has no grace, is, in my judgment, a. mis- 
take. And there is nothing in such a course as that 
to edifv our people or convince our opponents as to 
the truth of our opinion. 

I visited a little town, not long since, where our 
people had held an Association a few months 
before, and it was said that the different denomina- 
tions in the little village opened the doors of their 
houses to our brethren and invited them to preach 
especially on Sunday, and that some of our brethren 
preached in such a manner, as to so offend the peo- 
ple who owned the house in which they were preach- 
ing, that they refused to stay and listen to them. 
Whenever a minister drives his congregation away, 
by being rough, he is doing no good for the cause of 
Christ. The ablest defenders of our doctrine are 
men who draw crowds to them, instead of driving 



— ii8— 

them away, and I should take it as an evidence that 
I was wrong either in sentiment or in spirit, if good 
people would arise from my congregation and move 
out. Reasonable people, who are intelligent, will 
stay and listen to a man preach even if they do not 
endorse him, if they are respected as they should be 
by the speaker. I do not think that it is an evidence 
of soundness in doctrine to call people by hard names 
who oppose what I believe, and I think that our 
ministers should preach for some other cause than to 
try to establish the fact that they are sound in the 
faith. I would love to call the attention of the reader 
to this fact, that I think I have seen men who rejoice 
more under the voice of that minister who abuses 
other people, than of the one who describes the 
dependence and helplessness oi the poor sinner, in 
his lost and ruined state, and the all-sufficiency of 
God's grace through Jesus Christ, as a remedy for 
the disease of sin and its plague in the heart. I do 
not know that it is always an evidence of grace in 
the heart, that a brother will smile and sanction me 
more when I am fighting Arminians than he will 
when I am preaching on experience or practice. The 
Apostle says, "If ye live after the flesh ye shall die, 
but if ye through the spirit do mortify the deeds of 
the body ye shall live." I have been afraid many 
times that our brethren live after the flesh too much, 
in wanting to hear a great deal said against their re- 
ligious neighbors, by the minister in his sermon, and 
rejoicing at it when it is said. The Apostle Paul said 
"I determined not to know anything among you save 



— II 9 — 

Jesus Christ and him crucified." I am of the opinion 
that every sentence of gospel must have Jesus in it, 
and every word be seasoned with grace if it does 
good to the people of God's cause and kingdom, and 
the glory of his name. I once heard of a minister 
who was preaching for a church, only a short distance 
from a church of another denomination, and they got 
to reviewing each other's remarks, and the Baptist 
minister was so rough that when he would refer to the 
other man he would say "That abominable hypo- 
crite." His brethren would chuckle and laugh at the 
idea of his "peeling" the other preacher so. My 
judgment is that there was no gospel or Spirit of 
Christ in that kind of a course. Perhaps Jesus was 
not at the meeting at all, and when the congrega- 
tion dispersed if they had anything to say about the 
sermon at all, it was to rejoice at the manner in 
which our preacher had "skinned the other man." 
Brethren in the ministry, suppose we abandon that 
kind of a course, if we have ever been guilty of it, 
and if we have to make any reference to any other 
minister, let us not treat him as if he were a crimi- 
nal, and set him down with thieves, liars, hypocrites 
and everything abominable. I think brethren make 
a wonderful mistake in that line. 

There is another thing I have noticed in my life, and 
that is when we have an able minister, come to see 
us we think we would like to have him to preach in 
our little town. He is so able and so smart that we 
would love for our Arminian neighbors to hear him, 
and I fear it has often been the case that some of 



120 

our preachers have been called on to go to a town 
to preach more to show the town people that the 
Old Baptists had a preacher that they were not 
ashamed of, than to have the gospel preached to those 
people. I am opposed to a course of that kind, and 
would admonish the brethren never to undertake to 
make an exhibit of their preacher. The idea of a 
preacher going to a place for no other purpose than 
to make the people think he is smart, is very foreign 
to the calling of a gospel minister. I think it is time 
for our brethren who have been inclined to things of 
this sort, to stop and think, "Is this right"? Am I 
living after the flesh, or is this the doings of God's 
holy spirit"? I once heard of a preacher who took 
for his text, "Beware of dogs." He told the congre- 
gation that there was a wonderful difference between 
a dog and a sheep, and his application of the two 
seemed to be that the sheep were Old School Bap- 
tists, and that the dog was the Arminian. He said 
that a sheep loved grass and could live on grass, that 
it could not have anything better, and he seemed to 
think that grass in his application was the truth, or 
Old School Baptist doctrine. He said a dog did not 
eat grass unless he wanted to vomit, and that was the 
way -the Arminian was by the truth. He never swal- 
lowed the truth unless he wanted to vomit, and he 
was certain to vomit if he swallowed it. The breth- 
ren under his voice chuckled and snickered and 
were ready to say at the close of his sermon "I tell 
you, he is a good one. Did you ever hear a man 
that could beat him? Wonder what that Methodist 



12 



man thought about it? If I was him I would go 
home and crawl into my hole." Reader, what do 
you think of that kind of a course for Christian people 
as they go home from their house of worship ? The 
Lord deliver us from such a course of preaching as 
that. It is all wrong. My judgment is that there is 
more of the flesh in such a meeting as that than any- 
thing else, and I feel to thank the Lord that, although 
my brethren have accused me of being rough and 
severe on the Arminians, I have never called them 
hypocrites, neither have I ever unchristianized them. 
While I do not believe their doctrine, I believe they 
are as good as I am ; and while I do not believe 
their institutions are of God, nor their doctrine true, 
yet I believe they do great good in the world, and are 
Christian people, and I believe they should be treated 
with all the respectdue intelligent Christian men and 
women by our people. No reasonable man will ex- 
pect our preachers to preach to please him, neither 
will a reasonable man fall out with one of our preach- 
ers if he, in the right spirit preaches the Baptist doc- 
trine, and presents, in the right kind of a manner, 
his objections to the doctrine of their people. I am 
aware of the fact that a great many people seem to 
think that it is very wrong to say anything about other 
peoples' views of religion, at all. I think that is a 
mistake. The truth is worth contending for, and if 
it is preached in its purity, and simplicity, it will 
commend itself and its preacher to other men's con- 
sciences in the sight of God, and it is certainly un- 
necessary to abuse those who do not believe it. It is 



122- 



too late to undertake to convince a man that he is 
wrong, and that you are right, after you have insulted 
him, but to gain his good will and confidence, and 
then you have his ear, and if he is never convinced, 
he is as good as he was when you found him, and as 
long as he acts the gentleman, he deserves to be 
treated as such by you. These are my convictions 
about fighting, but I am far from believing that, in 
order not to offend other people, we should keep our 
doctrine to ourselves. I believe that I have the 
right to preach the doctrine I believe and oppose the 
doctrine I do not believe, no matter who does believe 
it and the man who falls out with me for it simply 
meddles where he has no business to meddle. This 
is a free country, and I do think that an Old Baptist 
preacher is in the very poorest business that he could 
be in, to go about apologizing to the Arminians for 
preaching the Baptist doctrine. If it is the truth and 
he believes it, there is no apology due for preaching 
it, and if it is not the truth and he does not believe 
it, he should not preach it, so in either case apologies 
are out of place. 



— 123— 

CHAPTER XXVI. 

In the foregoing chapter I have said that I thought 
it was wrong to fight other denominations by abus- 
ing them. I think there are extremes both ways. 
There are some of our brethren who seem to have an 
idea that if a man preaches doctrine at all, and dis- 
tinguishes between his own sentiments and those of 
other people, he is skinning some one. This class of 
our ministers are very eager to discourage the idea 
of preaching doctrine, at all. They seem to think 
the best way to do, is not to treat on doctrinal differ- 
ences between us and others. They frequently en- 
courage people of other denominations to think that 
a man who will preach doctrine is a fighter. It is often 
the case that impressions are made against our breth- 
ren on the minds of our Arminian neighbors as fight- 
ers, because they set forth the doctrinal differences 
between themselves and others. I have been told 
that certain men have said they would not go to hear 
me preach, because I always got up with my arms 
full of clubs. Men who are acquainted with me do 
not talk so much this way about me. I do not feel 
disposed to manifest egotism upon that subject, but 
I never did preach a congregation away. As a gen- 
eral rule, where I have preached the longest I have 
the best congregations. I never thought it was fair for 
one preacher to want to dictate to himself, and then 
to another preacher, how they should both preach. 
I have always been willing for my brethren to exhort, 
or to talk about experience, or anything they saw fit, 



— 124 — 

so long as they preach the truth, and I have thought 
that some men object to my manner of preaching, 
simply because I do not preach as they do. That I 
cannot help. 

Another thing on the subject of preaching, that 
is worthy of notice, is that our brethren have neglected 
reading more than they should. However, I think 
of late years that there is an improvement in that 
direction. There has been a great deal of improve- 
ment since I first began the ministry. When I was 
young, it was very common for our brethren to 
throw out insinuations against a man who would 
read a great deal in other books, aside from the 
Bible. I have known some of our old ministers, 
who were really able, to have no other library but 
the Bible, and brethren have said when they would 
find a minister reading and studying the Scripture, 
that they had no confidence in a man who had to 
study what he was going to say. I am of the opinion 
that our brethren, who talk that way concern- 
ing a minister, are very much mistaken as to what 
our ministers can do. The Apostle told Timothy 
to study. Study the Scripture, and be as well in- 
formed on everything else as he possibly could. A 
good store of general information will not hurt a 
preacher. I have seen men arise to preach and 
heard them announce their text and then make the 
remark that they had no idea what they were going 
to say. I think that is true many times, that a min- 
ister does not know what he will say, because he 
may think that he is going to say something, and 



-I2 5 - 

not say it, or he may think that he is not going to 
say certain things, and yet say them. But no min- 
ister is very well qualified to handle any subject be- 
fore his audience, in a manner to teach them, unless 
he has some knowledge of the subject himself. We 
must be masters of what we teach, and one Bible 
qualification of a minister of the gospel is to be apt 
to teach. The man who knows nothing, can teach 
nothing. It is true that a man may know a great 
deal, and yet not be able to teach anything, but we 
know that it is true that if he knows nothing he can- 
not teach. "Study to show thyself approved of 
God; a workman not to be ashamed, rightly divid- 
ing the word of truth." This is the language of the 
Apostle Paul to a young minister, who had known 
the Scriptures from a child, and if it was necessary 
for Timothy to study, it is also necessary for minis- 
ters to study nowadays. I think that many times if 
a minister would take pains to acquaint himself with 
the state and condition of his church and the condi- 
tion of its members, he might many times be im- 
pressed to take a text and preach on a subject, that 
he would not think of taking without such a knowl- 
edge of his people. A minister should look around 
and see what is going on and what his people are 
doing, and then he will be more likely to have 
something profitable to talk to them about than he 
otherwise would. It is not always an evidence of 
soundness to see a man afraid of doing what other 
people do. I remember I once attended the ordina- 
tion of a minister. I was called on to deliver the 



126 

charge and, because I had something to say about 
propriety, I was accused of having read the Metho- 
dist discipline, before I got half a mile from the 
meeting-house. I have always claimed that if the 
Methodists had anything good, I wanted it. If the 
Missionary Baptists have anything good or if any 
other people have anything good, I think we ought 
to have it, and I never saw any good reason for re- 
jecting anything simply because somebody else, of a 
different denomination had it. I have heard good 
songs many times, that are found in the hymn books 
of other denominations and that are sung by almost 
every denomination, and some of them are sung by 
most of our people, but to some people among the Old 
Baptists such songs are very much out of place. I 
have spoken of or recommended a song many times, 
and have been answered by this remark: "I have 
heard that song sung so much by the Methodists 
that I do not like to hear it sung; or "The Metho- 
dists sing that song; or "That song belongs to the 
Methodists;" as if Baptists must not sing it, if the 
Methodists do. I have thought that if we are never 
to do anything that other people do, we will have to 
quit preaching, praying, and going to church, for 
other people do all these things. Besides all those . 
good things that other people have, we had first ; 
and we should not give them up. We should never 
refuse to use a good thing religiously simply because 
the Methodists or any other people use it. I have 
been told many times that such and such things 
were not Baptist usage and I have almost always 



— 127 — 

replied that Baptist usage is not a standard. When 
we come to quote Baptist usage on anything re- 
ligiously, we find ourselves lost, for there is no one 
church that can be a standard for other churches. 
Each Baptist church is an independent organization 
of its own, and each one has rules and usages of its 
own. I have seen things practiced in some churches, 
that I am satisfied would be very bitterly opposed 
in other churches, of the Old Baptist order. I be- 
lieve if one church can practice a thing and be good 
Baptists, any other church may practice the same 
thing and be good Baptists. I also believe that if 
one church can do without that practice and be a 
good Baptist church, any other church may do the 
same ; but the fact that my church never practiced 
such a thing, is no reason that your church should 
not. If a church is pursuing a course that is contrary 
to the Scriptures, either in doctrine or practice, she 
should quit it, and no Baptist church should give 
countenance to the doctrine or practice. I have 
seen a great many Baptist churches of our faith and 
order, who at their meetings, took up public collec- 
tions from their congregations just like the Arminians 
and other denominations in this country, by passing 
the hat. The Baptists of the Ketockton and Eben- 
eezer Associations of Virginia and perhaps all other 
Baptists in the east have that practice among them. 
I visited Elder Chick's church in Washington citj 
and they took up a public collection and I am told 
that all the Baptists in the east and northeast prac- 
tice that course. If the Baptists in this country 



should undertake such a thing, there would be very 
serious objections raised to it; but I think those 
eastern people are good Baptists and they have that 
practice. If they were going to quote Baptist usage, 
they would be in favor of public collections, but if 
we were going to quote Baptist usage, we would 
simply quote what we are used to here. In no case 
can we take usage as a standard for all Baptists 
everywhere, neither should we say that people who 
do those things or do them not, are not Baptists. 
We have no right to say that. I mention the subject 
of public collections as an example, because there 
are many other things in which churches differ from 
each other as to their customs, that are too numerous 
to mention here. I believe that almost all our people 
are agreed on the subject of receiving members by 
experience, but while this is true, they differ in their 
practices in different localities in their manner of re- 
ceiving members. Some of them count a man a 
member of the church from the time he has related 
his experience to the church and the church has voted 
his reception. Others receive them into the church 
formally, after baptism. Both are Baptist usages 
but not in the same locality. Thus, a practice is 
not necessary to soundness, neither is the omission 
of a practice necessary to soundness. Again Bap- 
tists differ about shaking hands with each other. In 
some places they seem to think it is an Aminian 
practice, but among our people in southern Indiana, 
southern Illinois and farther south it is a common 
practice, and one which the brethren seem to enjoy 



I2Q 



very much. A minister would be in poor. business, 
if everywhere he goes, he objects to and fights every 
new practice he comes across. I speak of this from 
my own personal knowledge. 



CHAPTER XXVII. 

As it is often thought that we ministers have an 
easy time traveling about from place to place to 
preach and visit among the brethren. I believe I 
will devote one or two chapters to that subject, in 
order that the reader may form an idea as to what 
easy times we do have. I believe that I will give 
an account of one or two trips, as samples of several 
that I have taken in my life. 

In about the year '71 I was requested to make an ap- 
pointment at Lynn Church, Moultrie County, Illinois, 
in connection with Elder John Shields, who then lived 
in Coles County, Illinois. The meeting was to be 
on Saturday and Sunday, including the fifth Sunday 
in November, if I remember correctly. The brethren 
who invited me instructed me to get off the train at Sul- 
livan, Illinois, and that I would be met and conveyed 
to the church, which was south of Sullivan a distance 
of four miles. I left Grayville, my home, on Friday 
morning and went to Olney in a stage, a distance of 
some thirty-five miles. I arrived at Olney in time 
for a train on the O. &M. railroad going west about 
five o'clock in the afternoon. I went from there to Odin 
and changed cars for Mattoon, at which place I ar- 



— i 3 o— 

rived about midnight. There I remained until the 
next morning which was cold and frosty. Then tak- 
ing the train for Sullivan, I landed there about nine 
o'clock in the morning. No person met me, but as it 
was cool and pleasant I thoughtlcould walk four miles 
and it would not hurt me. So I started and I feel con- 
fident that if I walked one mile I must have walked six 
or seven. When I arrived at the church, the people 
were beginning to gather and there was no one there 
who knew me, nor did anyone come until late that I 
had ever seen. I stood around playing the part of a 
stranger, not being very communicative, and listened 
to the brethren and sisters talking to one another, un- 
til finally a man came up who paid more attention to 
me than the others. While he talked to the other 
people, he would frequently cast his eye at me, as 
if he thought he had seen me. I had no idea who he 
was, but he finally came up to me and asked me if 
my name was not Potter, and when I told him 
it was, he said that he had seen me at an Association 
some time before that. He did not live in that neigh- 
borhood, and there was no person present that had 
ever seen me except him. He introduced me to a 
few of the brethren and sisters present, but they did 
not seem to take much interest in trying to get ac- 
quainted with me. I was quite young and looked 
fully as young as I was and had more the appearance 
of some strange, green boy, away from home than 
of a minister of the gospel. Finally an Elder came 
by the name of Watson. I had an introduction to 
him and after we had been in the house a few min- 



—131— 

utes and the brethren had sung a few songs, this 
Elder Watson arose from his seat and started toward 
the pulpit, saying to me, "Brother Potter, it is meet- 
ing time. Come into the stand." Elder Shields had 
not arrived. Elder Watson walked up into the stand 
without saying another word to me, and I saw if I 
did not go on that invitation, from all appearances, 
it seemed that I would get no other, so I got up and 
took a seat, in the stand. He took his books, selected 
his hymn and text, arose, introduced services and 
went to preaching without saying anything to me. It 
seemed that the people there had no knowledge of 
any appointment for me, or if they knew that there 
was an appointment, they had no idea that I was the 
the man for whom it was made. Elder Watson had 
not been preaching a great while until I began to feel 
eager to preach. I have a few times in my life heard 
men try to preach, whom I thought I could beat and 
I thought, after hearing Elder Watson a few minutes 
that I could beat him. I suppose this was all of the 
flesh, for he was a very good preacher. When he 
was through, I took the book and read my text from 
the eighth chapter of Hebrews, some expression in the 
New Covenant, but I do not remember what part nor 
what expression and I suppose that I occupied about 
forty-five minutes. When I was through, the breth- 
ren and sisters seemed more anxious to make my ac- 
quaintance than they had been before and from that 
on I enjoyed myself very well, but it was very em- 
barrassing to find no one at the train when I got off 
whom I knew, and then to find no one at the church 



— 1 3 2— 

who knew me. However after meeting on Saturday, 
I enjoyed myself very well among those strange 
people. I think that they were good people, but I 
have no idea that they had ever heard very much 
about me, if anything. Elder Shields came in dur- 
ing the afternoon and we had meeting at a private 
house that night. On Sunday we met again at the 
church and had a pleasant meeting, and on Sunday 
night we had meeting at another private house, an 
old Brother Wagoner's, who lived about ten miles 
west of Mattoon. Elder Shields and Elder Dalby 
were two leading men of their respective Associa- 
tions. Shields was a member of the Wabash dis- 
trict, and Dalby a member of the Okaw Association. 
They differed very materially on the subject of the 
new birth. Elder Dalby was said to be the origin- 
ator of the no-soul doctrine, which I have already 
mentioned in connection with Elder Paine. Elder 
Shields fought that doctrine, and at the time of this 
meeting the two men were on very unpleasant terms. 
Elders' Dalby and Paine had held a meeting a few 
miles away that day, and in the afternoon they came 
to old Brother Wagoner's where we were to preach 
that night. These two brethren had been accused 
by each other of taking very extreme positions against 
each other. Elder Shields has been accused of de- 
nying that the body was any part of the child of God. 
Whether he was guilty or not, I do not remember 
his ever saying so, but I do know that he claimed 
to believe in the resurrection of the body. Elder 
Dalby had been accused of denying that there is any- 



— x 33— 

thing about man except the physical part of him. He 
believed that it is the man that is born again in the work 
of regeneration. It seems that this controversy was 
so hot between the two that it was impossible for one 
of them to preach in the presence of the other with- 
out referring to it. Elder Shields preached first that 
night and in the course of his remarks he took hold 
of his coat and drew it around him, stating that he 
had said that John Shields did not believe The Bible. 
I was very much surprised at that statement, but I 
felt that he intended to be understood that John 
Shields was the outer man, or body, and that it had 
not yet been regenerated, but that the soul had and 
was a believer. I felt that it was an extreme posi- 
tion for a man to take and I still think it was. When 
he was through, I followed him, and Elder Dalby 
seemed to sanction very heartily what I said. When 
I was through, Elder Shields suggested that the 
brethren sing a parting song and, as I was going to 
start home from there, that we extend the parting 
hand. Elder Dalby started the song and on that ac- 
count Elder Shields took a seat near the fire-place 
and shook hands with no one. His conversation, 
after meeting was over and the people were gone, con- 
vinced me that the reason he would not was because 
Elder Dalby started that song. This was indeed, a 
very unpleasant state of affairs. But these are some 
of the experiences a man may have in traveling about 
and trying to preach the gospel among strangers. Not 
only will he have hard times so far as bodily exer- 
cise and exposure are concerned, but unpleasantness 



— *34— 

among the brethren and cool treatment from those 
with whom we are not so well acquainted are very 
well calculated to make a poor minister feel that it 
would be more pleasant to be at home with his fam- 
ily, where he will be more kindly received, and 
where the people know him better. 



CHAPTER XXVIII. 

At another time, I think it was in 1875, I started 
on a tour through the northern part of the state of 
Indiana, into a portion of the country where I never 
had been before. I was living at Grayville, and I 
was to take the train at about ten o'clock in the 
morning going to Vincennes, to make connection 
with the train from there to Terre Haute and thence 
to Greencastle and from there to Bainbridge, my 
first appointment being at that place. I was to ar- 
rive there at six o'clock in the evening. Elder G. 
M. Thompson had arranged the appointments for 
me. When I left home and boarded the train it was 
about thirty minutes late and its time in Vincennes 
was precisely the time of the E. & T. H. train, on 
which I was to go to Terre Haute. When I gave 
the conductor my ticket, he inquired if I w r anted to 
go farther north than Vincennes. I told him I did 
and asked him if he thought we would make the 
connection. He said he thought we would although 
we were thirty minutes late. We had about forty 
miles to run and to make thirty minutes' time in a 



—135— 

forty mile run required a considerable gain. About 
a mile and a half south of the depot at Mt. Carmel 
our train wrecked. No one was hurt seriously, but 
the idea of meeting the train at Vincennes was pre- 
posterous now. The conductor however recognized 
the passengers and said that there would be a train 
here for them, as soon as they could despatch to 
Vincennes and the train could come. Some of the 
men and myself walked on up to the depot to await 
the arrival of the other train. I waited there until 
late in the afternoon and no train came and it was a 
hard matter to get any information from any of the 
railroad employes. I began to get hungry and 
thought if I had an opportunity I would go to a hotel 
and get my dinner, but I hardly knew whether to 
leave the depot or not for fear the train might come 
and I would miss it. I do not think there was a hotel 
nearer the depot than a quarter of a mile, but I finally 
started to go up town to get my dinner, and about 
fifty yards from the depot, I met a stranger walking 
in a hurry and he asked me if the train had come. I 
told him it had not and I doubted if there would be 
any train. "O! yes," he said, "there will be a train 
here now in five minutes. I heard some railroad men 
say so a few minutes ago." I concluded that if the 
train would be here in a few minutes I had better not 
leave, so I turned back and waited till about four 
o'clock. I finally concluded that the best thing I 
could do would be to take what is now known as the 
Air Line train over to Princeton and catch a train 
there for Terre Haute. So I went to the other depot 



_I 3 6— 

and it was so near train time that I did not have time 
to get anything to eat, but T thought I would get my 
supper when I got to Princeton. When I got there, 
however, the connections were so close and there 
were no arrangements for meals near the depot, so 
I had no opportunity to get anything to eat. It was 
after dark and I was hungry. I boarded the train 
and went on to Terre Haute, arriving there at about 
ten o'clock in the night. I then went to a lunch 
counter and got a cup of coffee and perhaps a sand- 
wich. After a while my train came for Greencastle 
and I boarded it and went on, arriving there at about 
three o'clock in the morning. When I landed, there 
was no person about. The depot was all closed up, 
no hacks, no street cars at that time in the night, and 
one man and little boy, who got off the same train 
that I did, were the only persons that I saw. I in- 
quired of the man where the other depot was and he 
told me that it was at the extreme northern part of 
the city. The depot where I got off was at the 
extreme southern part. I asked him how I would 
find the way to it. He showed me a street car 
track and told me that it led directly to the other 
depot and if I would follow it, I would get there. 
I started and all the light I had to walk by was the 
starlight. Sometimes the mud hindered me from see- 
ing the track, from the sidewalk and, as the track 
turned once in a while, I would perhaps go on 
until I missed it and then wade out into the street 
and find that I had left it and then I would have 
to go back until I found it. I went on and, when 



— J 37— 

I got into the main part of the city, the first thing 
I knew I was within two feet of a policeman, who 
threw his light on me from a dark lantern. I 
did not know whether he intended to molest me or 
not; however, I was not afraid. He remarked, 
•'You are traveling, are you?" I told him that I 
had just gotten in off the train. He said, "All right. 
Go ahead." I went on to the depot and when I got 
here, at perhaps, four o'clock in the morning, there 
was no one about the station. Everything was dark 
and silent as the grave and I knew nothing about 
when there would be a train. It was ten miles to 
Bainbridge, where I was to preach that day. I saw 
a house near by that was lighted up and had a hotel 
sign by the door. I concluded I would go in there 
and sit by the fire until the train came or until I could 
learn something about it. I walked in and as the 
room was warm and a good cheerful fire burned in 
the stove I took a seat. There was no one in the 
room, but I had not been seated long before a man 
opened the door and looked in saying, "This is no 
hotel." "Well," said I, "what did you say it was 
for? The sign out here says hotel." He remarked 
that he had only been there but a short time and had 
not taken the sign down. I told him that I did not 
want a hotel, that I was waiting for a train and saw 
no place to wait and just thought I would come in 
there until train time. "Well," said he, "you can 
not stay in here," and I got up and walked out and 
waited out in the cold, frosty weather, until finally 
I heard a train coming, but it proved to be a freight 



-i 3 8- 

train. I ran immediately to the first man I saw with 
it, and asked him if that train went to Bainbridge. 
He said it did and if I wished to go there to get right 
in the caboose. I made my way to the rear end of 
the train and entered the caboose, where there was a 
good warm fire, so I lay down upon a bench and the 
next thing I knew we were on our wavto Bainbridge, 
at which place I arrived at about sun-up. I had had 
nothing to eat since the breakfast before, had been 
up all night and had an appointment to preach at 
eleven that day, also that night. Of course I was in 
a grand plight for preaching. These are some of the 
blissful experiences a minister has in traveling to 
preach. 



CHAPTER XXIX. 

While out on this trip, I met with several of these 
brethren in central Indiana, who have since separated 
from our fellowship on account of means and instru- 
mentalities. I was at Elder J. W. Shirley's church 
one day and night and I felt confident, from all that 
I saw and heard, that he was not well pleased with 
the manner in which Elder Thompson and I preach- 
ed. When we arrived at the church, he took us 
into the back part of the house and requested us not 
to preach doctrine. I have felt for many years that 
those people, who claim to be Primitive Baptists and 
are opposed to doctrinal preaching, have their reasons 
for their opposition. I am also of the opinion that 



— J 39— 

the reason they have for opposing the doctrine is 
that they do not believe it. Elder Shirley did not 
believe the doctrine that I was preaching at that 
time. As an evidence that he did not, he told me 
at Lebanon, Indiana, when I was there attending 
court during the noted trial for the property of 
Mount Tabor Church, that he had known that he 
and I had differed ever since the first time that he 
saw me. I took that as a plain admission on his 
part that he never did believe what I preached. 

I went from there on up into Clinton County, and 
there a little circumstance occured at the late and 
beloved Brother William Oliphant's, of which I wish 
to give an account. After preaching at Little Flock 
Church on Saturday, a Mr. Oliphant and his wife, 
who had been and who were Methodists, went back 
with us to old Brother Oliphant's for dinner. When 
we arrived there we found Elder John Kinder, who 
was to preach a funeral at the church the next day. 
This Mr. Oliphant, who was a Methodist, began to 
ask me some questions concerning my discourse on 
that day, and the positions that I occupied. I 
thought that, as Brother Kinder was an old man and 
at home, and better acquainted with Mr. Oliphant 
than I was, he would take the controversy off my 
hands, if it was necessary to have anything like a 
controversy. So I answered his questions as easily 
as I could, until finally Elder Kinder made a re- 
mark which gave me to understand that he did not 
endorse the positions that I occupied. Then I be- 
gan to talk very plainly to him, so that he would not 



— 140 — 

mistake me as to what I did believe, and in a very 
short time he made the remark to me: "If that is 
what you preach you had better go home, for you 
are doing no good preaching." I told him that I 
was a comparatively young man and that I was a 
long way from home, and that I had no other busi- 
ness there than to preach the gospel and get ac- 
quainted with the people. I also told him that if I 
could not show good reasons for preaching as I did, 
I was ready to start home at any time, but that I 
now wished to ask him a question or two. I do not 
remember the question I propounded to him, but I 
soon saw that he was disposed to evade it. This I 
would not allow him to do, so, when he saw that 
nothing would do but an answer to the question I 
had asked, and that it was rather hard to answer, 
he made the remark, (I thought a little crusty), that 
we differed so far that he did not think we would 
ever come together, and that he could not give me 
any information, and that he would rather not talk 
to me. I said "All right, I hope there is no hard 
feelings about it." He said "No," so Mr. Oliphant 
and I went on with our conversation, and I really 
felt that Mr. Oliphant was more consistent than El- 
der Kinder, but I was not allowed to say anything 
to him about it. At the supper table, our conversa- 
tion still being kept up, Mr. Oliphant made the re- 
mark that he was no preacher, and that he wanted 
it understood that he could not hold his own with all 
of us preachers. I told him I thought they were all 
on his side but me, when Elder Kinder spoke up 



— I 4 I— 

and said "Yes, I like his positions better than I do 
yours." I thought that was the case, but I was not 
allowed to say anything. The matter passed on, 
but I thought very little of Elder Kinder as a Bap- 
tist. I had no doubt that he was a good man, but I 
felt confident that he was not a Baptist. On Sunday 
morning, when I got ready to start to meeting, El- 
der Kinder was also ready, and as it was only a lit- 
tle ways to the meeting-house, he and I started out 
on foot. When we got out on the road I said to 
Elder Kinder that I was aware that we differed, but 
to what extent I did not know, and, in order to find 
out; I would love to ask him a few questions if it 
would not be an intrusion on his feelings. He said 
it would be all right, so I asked him if he believed 
Christ died for all the race of men. He refused to 
answer. I remarked that if he would not say, I 
would not be able to find out whether we differed or 
not. I told him I did not believe he died for all the 
race. I then asked him if he believed in election. 
He said yes, but not as some men held it. He said, 
"I believe just as the Apostle Peter did ; God is no 
respecter of persons, but in every nation he that 
feareth Him and worketh righteousness is accepted 
with Him." Elder Kinder gave this text just about 
such an interpretation as the Arminians usually do, 
when they quote it in reference to the doctrine of 
election. He said that he believed that there was a 
sufficiency of grace given to every sinner in the 
world, that he could accept salvation and be saved 
if he would, and if he did not it was his own fault. 



— 142 — 

"Well," said I, "that is your position, is it?" He 
said it was, and that he would preach that if he had 
to stand alone. I told him I thought he need not be 
uneasy, for he would have plenty of company, for 
the whole Arminian world believed it. Those men. 
that is Kinder and Shirley, are now among those 
who have left our people and gone off with Burnam 
and others, who have favored the doctrine of human 
instrumentalities and means in giving the sinner 
eternal life, and the practice of Sunday Schools, 
Missions, and other so-called means of grace for the 
Evangelization of the world of mankind. From 
that day to this I never saw the time that I thought 
very much of those brethren as Baptists. I noticed 
during my stay among the churches where those 
preachers were, that they did not approve of what 
we call negative doctrinal preaching very much. 
Some of them undertook to talk to me about it, and 
said that the people did not understand the doctrine 
if we did preach it to them, to which I replied that 
if we did not preach it to them, they were certain 
never to understand it. I feel confident that those 
brethren have not become unsound since that time, 
for they were already unsound. 



—143— 
CHAPTER XXX. 

After I had visited several churches on this trip 
and had wound up my tour and was ready to start 
home, I went to Wabash to take the train for home 
on Monday morning. The weather was cold and 
the snow in that part of the country was about eight 
or ten inches deep. I had been away from home 
some five or six weeks and was very eager now to 
get started home. When I came to the station at 
the city of Wabash, I found a number of passengers 
waiting for the train, also that the train would be 
perhaps an hour late. It seemed dreadful to me to 
think of waiting an hour for the train when I was 
ready to start and anxious to be on the road. I 
walked the floor, without any conversation with any- 
one, for I did not feel very communicative. Finally 
I noticed a man come in, whom, for some cause or 
other, I took to be a preacher. I did not pay any 
attention to him especially but, when I stepped up 
to the ticket window to get my ticket, I noticed he 
was getting a clergyman's ticket. While I was 
standing around a young gentleman recognized and 
approached me and commenced conversation with 
me. I did not know him, but he said he had heard 
me preach at one of my appointments in the past 
week. After I had procured my ticket and had a 
few words with this young gentleman, I began my 
walk back and forth across the room again, waiting 
very impatiently for the train to arrive. Finally, 
this gentleman, who I thought was a preacher, hailed 
me as I was passing him and invited me to a seat 



—H4— 

with him. I sat down and he remarked, "You are 
a minister, I suppose?" I answered "Yes, sir, I 
try to preach some." "What church are you 
preaching for?" he asked. I said "The Baptist 
church." "The Missionary Baptist church?" I 
said, "No, the Old School Baptist church." "O, 
well, it don't make much difference what church a 
man is in, so that he is doing good." I told him I 
was doing the best I could, preaching the gospel to 
the people and baptizing occasionally. I found that 
he also was a minister and that he belonged to the 
United Brethren. This was about the amount of our 
conversation, as I did not feel much like talking to 
him. Presently the train came and we boarded it 
for home. After taking a seat in the car, the afore- 
said preacher looked around and saw me a few 
seats back of him and he arose and came back and 
took a seat with me. He asked me what the differ- 
ence was between the Old Baptists and the Mis- 
sionary Baptists. I told him I could give him a few 
thoughts of what I believed and our people believed 
and, if he was acquainted with the Missionary Bap- 
tists, he could draw the -contrast himself. I told 
him that our people believed in the doctrine of the 
absolute sovereignty of God in all cases and that 
God chose his people in Christ Jesus to salvation 
before the foundation of the world and that Christ 
came into the world to redeem them exclusively and 
that all that He redeemed would be saved. That 
the Holy Spirit quickened them into divine life and 
that there was no such thing as final or eternal apos- 



— 145— 

tasy of a saint. "Well," he said, "you don't be- 
lieve that Christ died for all men, then?" I told 
him, yes, I believed He died for all men, but I did 
not believe He died for all the race of men. He 
said "Is there not a text that reads this way?" "He 
is the propitiation for our sins and, not for ours only, 
but for the sins of the whole world," I answered, 
"Yes, there is just such a text as that in my book." 
"Well, what does that mean?" I told him I could 
not tell him for the life of me, unless it meant what 
it said "Well," said he, "I understand it to mean 
just what it says, too." "We are together then," 
said I. He said he believed it meant all the race. 
Said I, "It does not say all the race." But he said 
he understood it to mean just the same as if it had 
said all the race, for it said all the world. "Very 
well," said I, "Let us read it that way." "He is 
the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, 
but also for the sins of all race of Adam." In ad- 
dition to being the propitiation for our sins, He is 
the propitiation for the sins of all the race of Adam. 
Agreeable to that, we are not of the race of Adam. 
Another text I referred him to: "We know that 
we are of God, but that the whole world lieth in 
wickedness." Suppose we say that the whole race 
of Adam lie in wickedness, then who are left of 
God out of that race? The apostle did not say, we 
know that we are of God and all the balance of the 
race lieth in wickedness, but he says the whole world 
lieth in wickedness. From this time, he seemed to 
lose his temper and began to talk loud. He be- 



— 146 — 

came very much excited and said he would not give 
a cent for the Bible without common sense with it. 
"Very well," said I, "your position has neither the 
Bible nor common sense." That did not seem to 
put him in any better humor, but he began to talk 
so loud that he attracted the attention of the peo- 
ple all over the car. I did not try to argue with 
him, for I saw that he was not in a suitable frame of 
mind to argue. When I would begin to speak and 
tell him what I did believe, he would pitch in and 
undertake to tell it for me, until I finally suggested 
to him that one speak at a time and that we time 
ourselves. I took my watch out of my pocket and 
told him to go ahead and make his speech and I 
would reply to it. "Well, you speak first," said 
he. So I began and quoted about a dozen different 
texts, without any comment whatever, and said, 
"Now I will give you thirty minutes to reply to 
what I have said." Said he, "Do you think I am 
going to reply to the Bible?". Said I, "That is 
what you have to reply to if you reply to me, for I 
stand right on the Bible." He hesitated and said 
he knew the people used to believe that old doctrine 
away back in the dark ages, but he did not know 
that anybody believed it now. "Well," said I, "Did 
they have the Bible when they believed it back 
in the dark ages, or were they heathen people?" 
He hesitated a moment and finally said "I thought 
that since Dr. Clark's Commentaries had been in- 
troduced, men had quit believing that old doctrine." 
"Oh," said I, "When they had the Bible they be- 



— 147— 

lieved as I do, but when they got Dr. Clark's Com- 
mentaries, they believed as you do." "Now," said 
I, "You can have Dr. Clark if you want him, but I 
will still hold to the Bible." The poor fellow 
seemed very much away from home in the seat with 
me, but he did not have the courage to get up and 
go back to his seat, until the train stopped at 
Lafayette, where he got off. Then he arose, put 
on his wraps and walked away, without telling me 
goodbye, or saying that he wished me a safe trip 
home, or that he hoped to see me again, or any- 
thing of the kind. The train stopped for dinner, 
and, while we were waiting, I noticed that a num- 
ber of gentlemen who had listened to us on the train 
seemed very sociable and friendly to me after he 
was gone. I went on and soon arrived at my home, 
I felt that during that trip I had gained several im- 
portant items which perhaps I would never forget. 



—148— 



CHAPTER XXXI. 

I have always argued in favor of the doctrine of 
substitutionary atonement, and that all for whom 
Christ died would be eternally saved. I have also 
taken the position that the death of Christ did not 
affect any others, only the elect. I have had several 
discussions on the atonement and I feel satisfied, from 
the efforts of my opponents on that subject to refute 
the doctrine of a limited or definite atonement and 
also the doctrine of the vicarious sufferings of the 
Son of God, that the doctrine that I have advocated 
is the doctrine of the Bible. I went on a visit to Sul- 
phur Springs Church, in Simpson County, Kentucky, 
a few years ago and when I stepped off the train at 
Franklin, I was met by the pastor of the Methodist 
Church of the city. When he found out where I was 
going and that I expected to return to Franklin on 
Sunday evening, he invited me to preach in his pul- 
pit on Sunday night. His invitation seemed to be 
cordial and so it was readily accepted. As soon as 
I arrived in Franklin on Sunday evening, he called 
on me and seemed very genial and I enjoyed his 
company very much. Before we arrived at the 
church, one of his brethren came to me and said that 
I was requested to preach on the atonement that 
night. I very readily consented to do so and, in the 
the course of my remarks, I took the position that 
nothing short of perfect satisfaction for sin could be 
atonement. I stated and argued that Jesus Christ 



—i49— 

either satisfied the law for sin, or else he made no 
atonement whatever. If he did make an atonement 
it was by making such an offering and suffering such 
a penalty of the law, as would be equivalent to the 
demands of the law for sin. If he thus atoned for all 
the sins for the whole race of men, then, it must be 
unjust to send any of them to eternal perdition. For 
if Christ had made perfect satisfaction for their sins 
no just law would ever ask more. For proof of the 
positions for which I argued, I referred to Rom. v, 
6-1 1. "For when we were without strength, in due 
time Christ died for the ungodly." I took the posi- 
tion that to die for the ungodly, in this text, was 
to die in the place of the ungodly. The prepo- 
sition for is from the Greek huper, which means in- 
stead of, or in the place of. -"For scarcely for a 
righteous man will one die ; yet peradventure for a 
good man some would even dare to die.'' If any 
man loved a good man so dearly that he would 
die for him, he certainly must have the welfare of the 
good man in view in such a death. He would not die 
for him just for fun nor merely for the sake of dying. 
It must be that this good man is exposed to some ter- 
rible disaster from which he cannot escape, unless one 
die for him ; and then it is not argued here that he 
has a friend that would die for him, except with the 
most certain assurance that such a death would save 
him from the disaster. For a man to make such a 
sacrifice as to give up his life for the benefit of his 
friend, when he knew it would not benefit him, would 
be unwise. For him to die for his friend, in order 



— ISO- 

to keep his friend from dying, and at the same time 
know that his friend would die too, just as if he had not 
died for him, would be to give up his life for nothing. 
Did Jesus Christ give up his life for nothing? "But 
God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we 
were yet sinners Christ died for us." His love for 
us was so great that he died for sinners, not for good 
men. "Much more then being now justified by his 
blood, we shall be saved by his life." Who are jus- 
tified by his blood? I answer, "Those for whom it 
was shed." For whom was His blood shed? I an- 
swer, "Those for whom He died." The apostle 
here couples together the death of Christ and the 
justification of those for whom He died! Will justi- 
fied men go to hell? I answer, "No." If the Savior 
died for all the race of men, then what will be the 
result? I answer, "All the race of men will be saved 
if He died for them. "For if, when we were enemies, 
we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." 
Notice. Reconciled to God by the death of his Son. 
Who were reconciled to God by the death of his 
Son? I answer, "Those for whom He died." If He 
died for all the race of men, then He reconciled all 
the race of men to God by His death. "Much more 
being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." 
Who shall be saved by His life? I answer. "Those 
who are reconciled to God by the death of his Son." 
All for whom He died were reconciled. If that was 
the entire race, then they will all be saved. I then 
quoted from Heb. x, i. "By the which will we are 
sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus 



Christ once for all." How are they sanctified. I an- 
swer. "Through the offering of the body ot Jesus 
Christ." Who were those sanctified? I answer. 
"All for whom His body was offered." If it was of- 
fered for the whole race, then the whole race are 
sanctified by that offering. Sanctified people never 
go to hell. He did not only sanctify those for whom 
He was offered, but He perfected them forever. They 
who are sanctified and perfected forever, will most 
assuredly be saved. "For by one offering He hath 
perfected forever them that are sanctified." Verse 14. 
I of course quoted many other Scriptures from 
which I argued as above and when I was through the 
minister arose and said to his audience. "If we admit 
Brother Potter's premises, we cannot escape his con- 
clusions," 

After dismission we walked out together and I told 
him that my premises were the plain readings of the 
Bible, and if you admit the Bible to be true, you can- 
not escape my premises, and if you admit my prem- 
ises, you say you cannot escape my conclusions. I 
am glad to hear your frank admissions. But he said 
that there could not be such a thing as a substitu- 
tionary atonement. I have felt confident for years 
that the ablest men, among those who believe in a 
conditional salvation, have been able to see for some 
time if they admit a universal atonement, they can- 
not consistently deny a universal salvation. I was 
once in a conversation with a Mr. Tennison, a min- 
ister of the General Baptist Church, and I told him 
that I was not a Primitive Baptist just for fun and that 



— 1 5 2— 

I might just as well be something else, if we were not 
right. I told him that I wanted to read some Scripture 
to him and tell him how I understood them and then 
I wished him to tell me wherein I was wrong, I then 
turned to Rom. v. and Heb. x, and read and com- 
mented as I have done in this chapter, and when I 
was through, I called on him to tell me my mistakes. 
He simply said he could not do it. I was not dis- 
appointed, for I felt sure he could not before I asked 
him, but I think he thought he could until I was 
through and called on him to do so. 

CHAPTER XXXII. 

When I first joined the church and commenced 
trying to preach, I was a member of a church which 
belonged to the Skillet Fork Association, in Illinois. 
The churches of that Association were not as strong 
as they are today. The Birk Prairie Church only 
numbered five members when I first knew them. 
Other churches in the Association were very weak 
and I think that the Association, at that time, num- 
bered about three hundred and fifty members. She 
now almost doubles that in point of membership. 
This is clear evidence that the prediction, that has so 
often been made by our opponents, that the Old Bap- 
tists would soon all die out is a false prophesy and, 
if any person feels comforted by the thought that our 
people will soon die out, let me disabuse such a 
mind, for instead of dying out they are on the in- 
crease and there are more of our people in the United 



States today than there ever was before. I remem- 
ber visiting what was then called Mount Sterling 
Church, in about the year 1872. This church, at 
that time, held its meetings in a small log house 
about two miles west of Carmi. The present Carmi 
church was then the old Mount Sterling Church. 
After meeting was over on Saturday, I was invited by 
a brother to go home with him to dinner and, when 
I asked him how far it was, he said about six miles. 
I thought I would not go that far, for I had already 
come twenty miles and it was getting late and the 
weather was very warm. But, before I left the 
meeting house, I found that it would be the best that 
I could do, so I went home with the brother, who 
lived in the neighborhood of where Little Zion Church 
now is, in White County, Illinois. I stopped near 
what they called Number Four School House — I 
think there were about four or five members of the 
Regular Baptist Church, living within three or four 
miles of this school house. The people throughout 
the whole country, as near as I could learn, that be- 
longed to any church at all were Campbellites and a 
gentleman by the name of Logan was holding a pro- 
tracted meeting at Number Four. I went out to hear 
him on Saturday night and had an introduction to 
him and he asked me if I would not preach there on 
Sunday night. I told him I would not object but for 
the reason that he was holding a meeting there and 
that it was against my rule to make appointments 
that would interfere with the meetings of other peo- 
ple. He said it would be no interference, for he 



—154— 

would do his preaching during the day and would 
have no night appointment and that he was anxious 
to hear me preach and requested that I make the ap- 
pointment. I finally consented and the appointment 
was published for me to preach at Number Four on 
Sunday night. When I came back from Mount 
Sterling meeting on Sunday afternoon, I was told 
that he had held meeting that day and had baptized 
three or four and that he had made the remark that 
if I did not "toe the mark" he would reply to me. 
This made me think that he intended to fight, so I 
concluded to be very plain in what remarks I made. 
I took for a text, "Except a man be born again, he 
cannot see the kingdom of God." I went on to give 
the doctrine of the new birth, according to the New 
Testament, the way I understood it, also to show 
that not only was baptism not essential to it but that 
no other creature condition was, for it was the work 
of God. During his sermon the night before he had 
made several misquotations and I took the pains to 
correct some of them, during the course of my re- 
marks. The house was full and a large number of 
people were outside at the windows, so anxious were 
they to hear what I had to say. It was my first ser- 
mon, in fact, my first visit to that neighborhood. 
When I was through Mr. Logan arose to make a re- 
ply and the first thing he did was to thank me for 
correcting his mistakes. In his reply he soon made 
another mistake by making this statement: Said he, 
"Let me make a correction," and he turned to me, 
saying, "You quoted, 'Which were born not of 



blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of 
man, but of God.' Now," said he, "it does not 
read that way, but it says 'by the will of God' and 
that means by doing his will." I knew he was mis- 
taken as soon as he told how he thought it read. I 
opened the Testament, put my finger to the verse, 
held it up before him and told him to read it. He 
looked at it, saw his mistake and confessed it, stating 
at the same time that he had plenty of other Scrip- 
tures. This seemed to expose him in a manner that 
was very embarrassing to him but he rather recov- 
ered and, after talking some time, remarked, "But 
let me correct another mistake." Said he, "Where 
is that text of Scripture that says, 'He is exalted at 
the right hand of God to be a prince and a Savior, 
to give repentance to Israel and the forgiveness of 
sins?'" I answered, "Acts, v-31." "Well," said 
he, "it does not say to give repentence to Israel, it 
does not say to whom." I told him to turn to it and 
read it. So, as he turned to it, he kept repeating, 
until he found it, that it did not say to Israel. Finally 
he found it and I told him to read it out, so that we 
could all hear it. He read it and left out the words 
"to Israel." I told him to read the whole verse. 
Said he, "That is all the verse." I told him if he 
did not read it all, I would; so he went back and 
read it as I had quoted it. His dishonesty was so 
plainly seen by the people, that I thought it unnec- 
essary for me to say a word. He had read the 
Scriptures wrong with his eyes upon the verse and 
claimed that he was reading it just as it was. Such 



-156- 

dishonesty disqualifies a man for common respecta- 
bility, much less to be a minister of the gospel. 
What can we expect of a man, who is so dishonest 
as to read the Scriptures wrong with his eyes on the 
very thing he is reading? If the souls of men and 
women were in the hands of such a preacher, they 
would certainly stand a good chance of missing 
heaven. It is a great mercy to sinners that the Lord 
has never put the souls of men into the hands of 
preachers or into the hands of the church that they 
may be saved, but He has given them to His Son, 
and His word has taught us that "God was in Christ 
reconciling the world unto Himself." After Mr. 
Logan got through with his review of my sermon, I 
got up and announced that I would be back there in 
a few weeks, setting the time, for I felt that surely 
this people ought to have the truth preached to them. 
He wanted me to reply to him, but I told him that I 
did not think it was necessary. Matters were just as 
good as I could make them. The people had seen 
what he had done and it was not necessary for me to 
say anything. He did not seem to be in the best 
humor and, after I dismissed the congregation, I told 
him that he had made one more mistake last night, 
that I had not corrected and that I would correct it 
now. He asked me what it was and I told him that, 
in speaking of repentence the night before, he had 
stopped and asked this question, "What is repent- 
ance?" and that he said, "Some men say it is godly 
sorrow for sin, but I do not know where they got it 
unless they got it from men. The Bible does not 



—i57- 

say so," and then he said that repentance worketh a 
godly sorrow. I asked him if he did not say that 
last night and he said he did. "Well," said I, "it 
does not read that way." "Well," said he, "I will 
find it for you by the time you come again." I told 
him I did not believe in going on credit and I wanted 
it settled now. I took my testament from my pocket 
and turned to the text, for I had it marked out and, 
instead of reading that repentance worketh a godly 
sorrow, it said "A godly sorrow worketh repent- 
ance." "Now," said I, "that is the way with your 
whole theory; it is just the reverse of the truth." 
And he, in rather a gruff manner, remarked, "Well, 
it don't read the other way, anyhow," and turned 
away and I have never seen him since. I went back 
and filled my appointment and the brethren began 
coming in occasionally to preach, and some of the 
Baptists moved in there and finally there was a church 
constituted that is now called Little Zion Church 
and today it numbers sixty or seventy members and 
the Campbellites seldom, if ever, hold any meeting 
there. 



-158- 
CHAPTER XXXIII. 






After I moved to Grayville in 1870, I made the 
acquaintance, during the ten years that I lived there, 
of a great many different preachers of the Camp- 
bellite, Methodist, Presbyterian and other denomi- 
nations. When a new preacher came to Grayville 
and his brethren took him around to introduce him to 
the citizens, it was frequently the case that I would 
meet him in the rounds and get an introduction to 
the new preacher. The most of them treated me 
very well except, perhaps, when they tried to pick at 
me a time or two, on first acquaintance, for being an 
Old Baptist. When I was young, they would often 
puzzle me with their questions, which caused me to 
study a great deal. I always respected a man, even 
if he differed from me on very important matters, so 
long as he treated me as I thought he should, but if 
I thought he felt himself smarter or wiser and was 
the least inclined to make light of me for being what 
I was, I had no mercy on him. I took care of my- 
self, under those circumstances, to the very best of my 
ability. During my stay there, a Methodist minister 
came to town whose name was Whitaker. I had an 
introduction to him soon after he came into Gray- 
ville, which was perhaps in the month of September. 
From that time on during the fall and early part of 
the winter I never saw him to speak to him, until a 
day or two before Christmas. He was almost a total 
stranger. I knew nothing of what kind of a man he 
was, but as I was going down the street one morn- 



-159— 

ing, not thinking of anything unpleasant or pleasant 
either for that matter, between Reverend Whitaker 
and myself on the subject of religion, I met him. 
When I came within a few feet of him, he began to 
call out and ask me how I was, saying that he had 
not seen me lo these many days and wanted to know 
where I had been keeping myself all this time. I 
told him I had been preaching the gospel, as the 
commission said, "Go ye into all the world and 
preach the gospel," and I had not stayed in Gray- 
ville all the time to sponge a living off the people. 
He kept his talk up very loud, to draw a crowd. He 
said, "Every church in town is going to have a 
Christmas tree, but the Baptist Church." I said, 
"Yes, so I understand." "Well," said he, "why 
don't the Baptists have a Christmas tree?" I told 
him I had been away from home and was not hereto 
make the arrangements. "Well," said he, "why 
don't your brethren fix it?" "Well," said I, "we 
would not have had one if I had been at home." 
"Well, why don't you have a Christmas tree and 
Sunday schools and class meetings?" I replied, 
"Because we do not want them. Now, let me ask 
you that many questions. Why do you have a Christ- 
mas tree? Why do you have Sabbath schools? Whv 
do you have class meetings?" and the only answer 
he could give was " Because we want them." 
"Well," said I, "we are even. You want them and 
have them ; we do not want them and do not have 
them." He said the Old Baptists would soon all be 
dead. I said they would, or some man had told a 



i6o 



falsehood. Said I, "Do you know what they did 
with false prophets in olden days?" He said he did 
not know. I told him they used to stone them to death 
and I believed it would be a good idea in this day. I 
told him that he was not posted, anyway, that the 
Methodists were dying out, that I had been all over 
the country, traveling all winter, and I had not heaid 
of a revival among the Methodists and of only one 
effort to have a revival, and that was a failure. I 
told him that I had a brother-in-law who was a Meth- 
odist and that I had been to see him in my rounds 
and he said their church was dead. He replied, "You 
say you have a brother-in-law who is a Methodist?" 
I replied, "Yes, sir." "He is a pretty fine kind of 
man, is he not?" I told him he would be if he 
were* not a Methodist. He then began to tell an 
anecdote which he applied to the Old Baptists and 
their doctrine, on which he seemed to think he had 
made a good point, but what it was I do not remem- 
ber. But I told him one to offset it, concerning the 
darkey, who went to hear a Methodist preacher. He 
listened very attentively to the preacher, who started 
out by preaching the doctrine of total depravity. 
Said I, "You know that is the doctrine of the Meth- 
odist Church." He said, "Yes." The preacher 
then began preaching about joining the church on six 
months' trial. Said I, "You know the Methodists 
preach that way." He said, "Yes." And he wound 
up by preaching the doctrine of final apostasy. I 
said, "You know that is the doctrine of the Metho- 
dist Church." He said, "Yes." The darkey no- 



— r6i — 

ticed all these things and listened so attentively that 
he attracted the attention of a gentleman in the 
crowd, who was anxious to know what the poor col- 
ored ooy thought and who sought an opportunity, 
after they were out of the house, to ask him what he 
thought of the sermon. The poor fellow said, "Why, 
dat man is a fool, or else de God he preaches is dis- 
honest, one or de oder. He says that God i\.lmighty 
say if you work for Him six months he will give you 
religion and den if you don't work for him all de 
balance of your days, he will take it away from you. 
You know dere is no honesty in dat. You agree, if 
I work for you six months, you will give me a horse 
and I work de six months ; de horse is mine. I don't 
have to work for you all de balance of my days so 
you won't take de horse away from me." He then 
started away and I walked along by the side of him 
to the post office and remarked to him, " Whitaker, 
I can tell you what is the matter with you. You 
Methodists love for me to whip the Campbellites, 
because you know that I can do it, but the Camp- 
bellites can whip you. You call them "water 
ducks," because they believe that baptism is essen- 
tial to the remission of sins and yet you believe it 
yourselves. I have it from one of your ministers in 
black and white in his notes on your Articles of 
Faith, that baptism is in order to the remission of 
sins. You think more of water than they do, for it 
only takes a spoonful to do the work for you and for 
them it takes enough to cover a man all over." The 
next morning he came running up to me on the 



— 1 62 — 

street, saying "Brother Potter, I want you to show 
me that article of our faith that says that baptism is 
in order to the remission of sins." "All right, sir," 
said I, "Your Article of Faith does not say it, but 
one of your ministers, in his notes on your Articles 
of Faith, does say it." "Oh, well, we are not re- 
sponsible for what our ministers say," he remarked. 
I told him it might be that a Methodist minister was 
not accountable for what he said and that, if I was 
certain that none of them were, I would not have a 
great deal to do with any of them. So we parted, 
and that is about the amount of sociability that ever 
occurred between myself and Brother Whitaker. 

CHAPTER XXXIV. 

I have always believed since I became interested 
on the subject of religion, that there is a divine real- 
ity in the Christian religion. Concerning this I have 
never been troubled with doubts. I believe, from 
what the Bible says, and from my own experience, 
as well as the experience of others, that the Lord 
Himself comes down by His spirit, and takes up His 
abode in the hearts of men ; so that, as the apostle 
said to the Corinthian brethren, "Your bodies are 
the temple of the living God." While I believe so 
confidently in a revealed religion, I have contended 
for years, that no person could give an account of 
why he turned away from sin, and began to serve 
the Lord, from love of the cause of Christ, without 
felling what we call an experience. 



— 163— 

While I was living at Grayville, a gentleman by 
the name of Gaff came there to preach for the Camp- 
bellite Church, being hired by them, for one thous- 
and dollars a year. From the price he got for 
preaching, it seems that he should have been capa- 
ble of doing a great deal of good for the people to 
whom he was hired. This same man, Gaff, one 
morning in the winter time, came into the printing 
office where I was at work, setting type, and, after 
walking around through the office awhile, as if it 
were his own concern, and he wished to see that 
everything was in its place and moving along satis- 
factorily, he finally came to me and began to talk- 
on the subject of the operation of the Spirit. He 
said that he believed in the operation of the Spirit 
but that the Spirit used instrumentalities in its oper- 
ations. To illustrate, he took his cane, and re- 
marked that he might strike me with his cane, and 
said he, "It would be me who does the striking and 
yet I really do not touch you myself, but the cane 
does. Just so the Spirit of God uses the word as 
the means through which it operates upon the hearts 
of sinners, and the Spirit itself does not come in con- 
tact with the sinner's heart." After talking along 
in that strain upon the subject of the operation of 
the Spirit, he said: "You Baptists claim to have an 
experimental knowledge of the Lord, and that when 
you were under conviction you prayed and begged 
and cried, and even went so far as to hide out in the 
woods behind a stump or brush-pile, and expected 
the Lord to pardon your sins before you obeyed 



— 164 — 

Him. Now" said he, "that is all a delusion." I 
laid my composing stick down and took a seat on a 
little bench by the stove, and said: "Brother Gaff, 
sit down here. The Apostle Peter says, "Sanctify 
the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always 
to give to every man that asketh you, a reason for 
the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear." 
I understand from this text, that if I am called 
upon, especially by an opponent, for a reason of my 
hope, I am under obligations to give it. What do 
you think of that?" He said he understood it the 
same way. "Well," said I, "I want a reason for 
your hope, and in order that I may understand you, 
I will ask you a few questions, that I want you to 
answer." He said, "All right," and I asked him 
if he had the love of God in his heart. He said, 
"Yes," he professed to have it. "Well," said I, 
"I am not going to say that you haven't, for I pre- 
sume you have. Was the love of God always in 
your heart?" "No," he said, "it was not always 
there." "Well," said I, "how did it get there?" 
He said it was shed abroad by the Holy Ghost. I 
told him that must be a part of his history ; it was 
an event that had occurred some time in his life. 
"Now," said I, "what I want you to tell me is, 
when did the love of God enter into your heart, and 
how did you feel at the time, and what makes you 
think it is there?" "Now," said he, "you want 
my experience." I told him he need not call it an 
experience if he did not want to ; he might call it 
what he pleased, or not at all, I just wanted the 



facts in the case. He said when he was a boy he 
was a great sinner, and, when he arrived at the age 
of manhood, he saw himself a condemned sinner in 
the sight of God, and he concluded he would repent 
of his sins, and, said he, "I did repent." "Now," 
said I, "just one little interruption right here. When 
you saw yourself a sinner, justly condemned, in the 
sight of God, did you feel comfortable, or did you 
feel wretched and bad?" To this he made no re- 
ply, and he- told me no more of his experience. I 
told him that if there was such a thing as a man 
seeing himself a justly condemned sinner before 
God, and at the same time feeling comfortable, I 
wanted to know it, and that perhaps he could tell 
me. That all the persons with whom I had ever 
talked on the subject, who had felt themselves justly 
condemned, had told me that they felt miserable. 
But I could learn no more from Brother Gaff, and I 
felt convinced, from this little circumstance, that it 
would be impossible for him to give a reason of his 
hope without telling what we call an experience of 
grace. 

While I have been a firm believer in the doctrine 
of experimental religion, I have also believed in a 
personal call to the work of the ministry, by the 
Holy Spirit. I remember a conversation with an- 
other preacher, of the Campbellite persuasion, whose 
name was James, in which he had something to say 
about a call to preach, and, after making some few 
remarks about it, he asked me the question, "When 
the Lord called you to preach, what did He say to 



— 166— 

you? " I told him that if he would answer me four 
questions, I would tell him my call to preach. They 
should be fair, and to the point, and the crowd 
would witness that what I had to say must be fair. 
He said he would do it. I asked him first, "Do you 
believe that it is the duty of men to preach the gos- 
pel?" He said he did. That is one. I asked him 
second, "Do you believe that it is the duty of all 
men to preach the gospel?" He said he did not; 
that there were some men whose duty it was not to 
preach the gospel. I asked him third, "Who makes 
it the duty of men to preach the gospel?" He said 
the Lord did. I said, "That is three; now one more 
question, and when you answer it, I am ready to tell 
you my call to preach, and if you can answer it as 
readily as you have the other three, I will soon be 
telling you." I asked him fourth, "How did you 
find out that the Lord had made it your duty to 
preach the gospel, and not some other man?" I 
have never told him my call to the ministry, because 
he never answered that question, and I feel confident 
that it is impossible for any man to answer the first 
three questions as he did, and then answer the fourth 
one consistently, without telling what we term a call 
to the work of the ministry. I believe that the 
preaching of the gospel is a matter of great im- 
portance, too much so to be left simply to the vol- 
untary actions of men, because the Lord has a great 
and noble purpose to accomplish by the preaching 
of the gospel, and it is a matter of too vast import- 
ance to be left to the voluntary actions of men. So 



— 167 — 

He calls men to the work of the ministry, and they 
are to preach with the ability that God giveth, and 
to preach as of the oracles of God. 



CHAPTER XXXV. 

About the year 1872, I commenced visiting the 
church at Paris, Illinois, and I attended their meet- 
ings occasionally, for some two or three years. My 
first meetings at that place were held in a hall above 
a saloon. Of course, this was not a very inviting 
place for people to come to, but our brethren and 
friends attended our meetings. Sometimes I would 
preach in the Court House and sometimes in the 
Missionary Baptist Church, but the most of our reg- 
ular meetings were held in this hall. I baptized a 
few people during my ministry at Paris. The church 
was weak, when I commenced going there, but re- 
vived considerably and seemed to have the respect 
and sympathy of the good citizens of the city of 
Paris. Even those, who did not believe the doctrine 
of the Baptist Church, attended our meetings and 
seemed to speak very encouragingly of our little in- 
terest there. Finally I was challenged for a debate 
by a Mr. William Holt, of the Campbellite Church. 
This debate began in the city of Paris, on the twenty- 
fifth day of June, 1873, and lasted three days. It 
seemed that, whether or not I maintained my posi- 
tions during that debate, I had the entire sympathy 
of the people, outside of Mr. Holt's own brethren. 



— 168— 

I have never flattered myself that I did anything great 
in that debate, for I was both young and timid and 
had had only a few debates up to that time. In fact, I 
never thought I was as great a debater as my breth- 
ren sometimes seemed to think me. After this de- 
bate was over the citizens of Paris, business men and 
others, told our brethren that if they would under- 
take to build them a house of worship in the City of 
Paris, they would assist them. Accordingly our 
brethren went to work and in a few months had a nice 
house built, but not all paid for. After this house was 
built and church matters were moving along very 
nicely, I quit preaching for them and there was a 
period of two or three years, in which I was not there. 
In that time, trouble had gotten among them and 
they had become divided. The church or part of it 
headed by Thomas P. Mullens, and a preacher by 
the name of Dodimeade were known as the Mullen's 
party. They excluded seven members. These seven 
members claimed to be the Mount Pleasant Church, 
in Paris and contended that the Mullens party, as I 
shall call them here for convenience, was in disorder 
and was not the church. These seven members set 
up to keep house ; and both parties represented them- 
selves by letter and delegates before the Association. 
They were members of the Wabash District Asso- 
ciation. The Association, however, rejected both let- 
ters and advised them to go home and be reconciled 
to each other and return in order. They had meet- 
ings from time to time for the purpose of trying to 
become reconciled, and in the mean time the Mul- 



— 169 — 

lens party shut those seven members out of the house, 
got new locks and put on the doors, and refused to 
allow them any use of the house whatever. The 
house, not being paid for, a suit was entered and 
judgment was obtained against them for the balance 
due. One Sister Darnell paid off the judgment and 
got a title to the house, which gave the house to those 
seven accused members, who occupied the same until 
they finally sold it to the United Brethren. During this 
unhappy season among the people at Paris, whom I 
loved dearly, I went to see them. In the first place 
I went to see Brother Mullens, who told his story 
about their trouble and division. Elder Joe Skeeters 
who had married one of the Mullens party, was liv- 
ing in Paris at that time and in sympathy with the 
Mullens party. Brother Mullens, Elder Dodimeade 
and I visited Elder Skeeters after supper. This was 
the first time I had seen him since he had moved 
away from Posey County, where he had lived and 
where I first met him. He was in warm sympathy 
with the Mullens party, though not a member of that 
church. Everything I heard in conversation that 
evening, was in favor of that party and against the 
seven members who had been excluded. Elder 
Skeeters told me that he had made a proposition to 
those seven members, like this: that if they would 
come to the church and request the church to rescind 
the act of there exclusion, not withdraw the charges 
from them but rescind the act of exclusion, and ask for 
a new trial and then, if they could not settle it them- 
selves, call a committee of brethren from sister church- 



— 170 — 

es and let them settle it for them, he would go the secur- 
ity for the church, that she would grant the request. 
Brother Mullens and Elder Dodimeade sat by and 
heard him make that statement to me. I was totally 
ignorant of the whole affair and I asked him if they 
had done so. He said they had not but had refused 
to do so. On the next morning, I went to Brother Dar- 
nell's house. All the seven members were there and 
their trouble was the topic of their conversation, and 
during this conversation they frequently referred to an 
instrument of writing, which I knew nothing about, 
and to the fact that they had received a letter from 
an old brother at Oblong, whose name was Odell, 
and who had visited them recently. I finally became 
curious to know what was in that letter and what the 
instrument of writing was, to which they so often re- 
ferred. When I inquired, they told me that they had 
gotton up an instrument of writing, requesting the 
church to rescind the act of their exclusion, and give 
them a new hearing, and that all seven of them had 
signed their names to it, and presented it to the church 
at the last meeting and that the church refused to 
hear them. They had kept this instrument and sent 
it to Brother Odell, and he had written them a letter, 
regretting very much that the church had refused to 
grant their reasonable request, which Brother Mul- 
lens and others had pledged their words to him and 
Elder W, H. Smith, when they were there, that they 
would do. When I read this letter and the instru- 
ment of writing to which the names of those seven 
members were signed, I immediately thought of what 






—i7i— 

Elder Skeeters told me the evening before, in the 
presence of Mullen's and Dodimeade, and I asked 
them if they would loan me that letter from Brother 
Odell and that written request that they had signed, 
until I could go to Elder Skeeters and back. Of course 
they said they would, so I put the papers in my pocket 
and started directly to Elder Skeeters' house. When 
I got there I found one of the brethren of the Mul- 
lens party there and I was truly glad he was. I said 
"Brother Skeeters, please repeat to me that propo- 
sition you made those seven members, as you did last 
night in the presence of Mullens and Dodimeade." 
He stated the matter again, just as he had the eve- 
ning before, that, if they would request the church 
to rescind the act of their exclusion and give them a 
new trial, he would insure the church to grant it. I 
told him that I had understood him to say the evening 
before, that they had refused to do it. He said yes 
they had so far, but that they had come to the church 
he had been told, with a request for the church to 
rescind the act of their exclusion and withdraw the 
charges, and that the church of course had refused 
to do. That was not what he had told them to do, 
for if the church withdrew the charges, there would 
be nothing to try. I told him that perhaps I had 
some information for him that he knew nothing 
about, and I drew their petition from my pocket, and 
told him that I had seen all seven of the members and 
they had told me that they presented this petition to 
the church, with all their names signed to it; then I 
read it over to him. "Now," said I, "Brother 



— 172— 

Skeeters, there is not a syllable in this about their 
wanting the church to withdraw the charges, and if 
there is any difference between this instrument of 
writing and what you told them to do, you will do 
me a favor to point it out to me. Elder Skeeters failed 
to make even an effort to point out any difference, for 
he knew there was none. The brother present stated 
that the instrument was presented to the church just 
as I read it and he thought the church ought to grant 
the request, and he made a motion to that effect, but 
no one seconded it. I became satisfied that some 
people were willing to misrepresent to the great hurt 
of innocent parties. I read to Elder Skeeters, 
Brother Odell's letter which corroborated what Elder 
Skeeters had told me, that they had agreed to grant 
that request if it was presented. I then went to 
Brother Mullens with the same papers, and gave 
them to him and requested him to point out the 
difference between the contents of that paper, and 
what they had proposed to do. He read it and every 
once in a while would say, "There is a difference," 
but he did not, neither could he, tell what the differ- 
ence was. I soon became converted to sympathy 
with the seven excluded members. I felt confident 
that truth and justice never required false statements 
and misrepresentations to vindicate them. I then vi- 
sited those seven members and preached for them at 
their houses occasionally, whenever I visited at Paris. 
I felt then and still believe that they were abused, and 
that perhaps some doctrinal heresies had been the 
cause of the whole thing. For Elder Paine, a man 



- i n— 

whom I have noticed before in this book,, had been 
there preaching and was heartily endorsed by Mul- 
lens and Dodimeade. Elder Skeeters, also, was an 
able preacher of the doctrines of the regeneration of 
the whole-man, also of the eternal flesh and blood of 
Christ. A few weeks before I made the visit to Paris, 
of which I have already given an account, I met an 
old sister Huffman, known by her people familiarly 
as Aunt Cassie, of Bethany Church, in Posey County, 
Indiana, where Elder Skeeters had once lived. She 
was a cousin of Elder Skeeters and thought a great 
deal of him. She asked me if I had seen Cousin Joe 
Skeeters lately. I told her I had not seen him since 
he left Posey County. She -then wanted to know 
whether he was preaching the Arian doctrine or not. 
I told her I knew nothing about what he was preach- 
ing, for I had never heard him. I told her that I had 
heard that he had preached that the flesh and bones 
of Jesus Christ came down from heaven and that he 
took nothing from his mother only the blood, but I 
did not know whether he believed it or not, for I had 
never heard him say anything about it. She said, 
"You preachers ought to see each other and talk mat- 
ters over before you go about accusing each other." 
Such talk as that ruffled my feelings just a little, and I 
told her in plain terms that I had just informed her that I 
had neither seen nor heard Elder Skeeters preach since 
he left here and that I did not know what he preached 
and that I never had said I knew. I also said to her, 
"Before you accuse a man in such a style, you 
had better find out whether he is guilty or not." 



—i74— 

She said that he did not preach that doctrine when 
he lived in Posey County, and that if he was preach- 
ing it now, he had changed, and she had no use for 
him or that doctrine, if he was preaching it, and 
that she intended to write to him and tell him so. 
When I saw him at his home, I asked him if he had re- 
ceived a letter from her lately, and told him the con- 
versation w T e had, and that she told me if he believed 
that doctrine and preached it, she had no use for him. 
She knew he did not preach it when he lived in 
Posey County. He replied that he had preached it 
in that pulpit, that is, at Bethany Church, Posey 
County, Indiana, a hundred times. He said that in 
the sixth chapter of John, the Scriptures say in so 
many words, in speaking of Jesus Christ, that his 
flesh came down from heaven. During that conver- 
sation, we began on the subject of the new birth. He 
said that man never was known to have an "Inner 
man" until after regeneration. Of course, the Script- 
ures perhaps do not sav anything about an inner man 
until after regeneration, but in taking his positions he 
made this remark, that the apostle commanded us 
to pray, lifting up holy hands; "Now," said he, 
"Where do you get holy hands, unless they are made 
so in the work of regeneration ?" So I became thor- 
oughly convinced as to where Elder Skeeters stood 
doctrinally, on those two points. In our conversa- 
tion, however, the question of the pre-existence of 
God's children came up as a topic of conversation, 
and I told him that I did hot believe in the pre-existence 
of God's children. He said he was aware of that, 



-i75— 

for he had seen in my paper the Church Advocate, 
in giving my account of the debate with Elder Hearde 
that I did not believe in the pre-existence of God's 
people in any sense whatever. He thought that was 
an extreme expression for a Baptist to make. I told 
him I had never said that in the Advocate. He con- 
tended that I had, for he had read it. I told him he 
had read more than what was there. I ought to know 
what was there when I wrote* it myself, and I know 
that was not in it. I told him that I had heard be- 
fore, that some. of his brethren had made the accusa- 
tion against me, but that they had done so without 
any foundation, for it was not in the paper. He re- 
marked that if it was not, he was badly mistaken. I 
reminded him that such a thing as that might be pos- 
sible. The next morning I was at the house of Sister 
Leonard, who was a subscriber to the paper, and I came 
across the number referred to, and when I went to 
Elder Skeeters' with those other papers, I took that 
along, handed it to him, and told him I wanted him to 
point out, in my account of the debate, the expression 
that he accused me of using the evening before. He 
took the paper and looked over it carefully. About 
the time he gave it up he began to talk on some other 
subject, folding the paper up and handing it to me. 
I interrupted him long enough to ask him, " Brother 
Skeeters, did you find in that paper where I said that 
I did not believe in the pre-existence of God's chil- 
dren in any sense of the word?" He said, "No, it 
was not in this paper." "Well," said I, " you said 
last night that you had seen it. Now, let me tell 



— 176 — 

you again that you have never seen it. It is possible 
that very positive men may be mistaken. I knew 
when you were talking to me that you had never 
seen it." 

The church at Mount Pleasant, that is the church 
in Paris, battled along for a few years in their 
divided state, the Mullens party claiming to be the 
church and the seven excluded members also claim- 
ing to be the church, until finally the Mullens party 
quit meeting. There were only a few of them, and 
they moved away or died away, until they were not 
able to keep house. There were about fifteen mem- 
bers who had been neutral and had not expressed 
themselves for either party. While the Association 
refused to accept these seven members as the church 
and wished them to go to the church and be recon- 
ciled, there was no church for them togo to as long 
as the Mullens party was recognized as the church. 
One of the old brethren finally said to me, at my 
house, concerning the affair, that he did not know 
how to remedy the trouble there. He thought the 
seven members had done wrong in setting up as the 
church and that they ought to come to the church 
and make an acknowledgement of it, before the 
Association could have anything to do with it. I 
told him that was all right, that he should go and 
call all those members together, who had never taken 
any part in the trouble, and let them organize as the 
Mount Pleasant Church, independent of Mullens and 
Dodimeade, and let these seven members come and 
make their acknowledgement and be restored ; then 



—i77— 

that would be the Mount Pleasant Church. That 
plan was adopted and a reconciliation was brought 
about and they were received again by the Associa- 
tion, and held their regular meetings for a few years, 
but I think that they do not meet regularly now. 



CHAPTER XXXVI. 

I have been accused many times in my life, to- 
gether with my brethren in the ministry, of being 
anti-mission, and men have gone so far as to accuse 
me of refusing to obey the commission which says, 
"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to 
every creature." I have always denied that charge. 
I claim to be a Bible Missionary. While some of 
my brethren, in order, I suppose, to meet the idea 
of the Missionaries concerning the carrying of the 
gospel to the heathen world, have contended that 
the apostolic commission is not in force to-day, 
I believe that it is. I have never felt disposed to 
say that the apostolic commission ended with the 
apostles, for I do not believe it did. I never could 
see the necessity of denying the commission in order 
to oppose modern Missionism, from the fact that I 
believe the commission suits me as it reads, better 
than it does our modern Missionaries. They claim 
that the commission was given to the whole church, 
while the text itself shows that it was given to the 
eleven. The reason the Missionaries want the 
commission so interpreted as to mean the whole 



— 178 — 

church, is, that they claim that it is the church's 
duty to send Missionaries to the whole world. The 
commission says, "Go ye into all the world. " It 
speaks to the eleven apostles personally, and it does 
not say to the church, "Send into all the world and 
preach the gospel," which certainly would be correct 
if that was what it meant. I believe that it is the 
duty of a man to go and preach, if the Lord calls 
him to that work, and then if he does not go, he is 
disobedient. When the Lord calls a man to the 
work of the ministry, he does not call him to go to 
school a series of years before he begins to preach, 
but when the Lord calls a man to be a minister, it 
is his duty to go to the work immediately. I have 
always opposed the idea that the preaching of the 
gospel is a profession. I am aware that some men 
claim that the preaching of the gospel is a profes- 
sion, just like the practice of medicine or the practice 
of law or any other profession, but I do not believe 
that, I believe that when the Lord calls a man to 
preach, he impresses his mind in some way, which 
causes that man to think of going. Sometimes his 
mind is directed to a time and locality. I have al- 
ready stated in a previous chapter, that when I was 
first impressed to preach, my mind was directed to 
the vicinity of Grayville, Illinois, when I did not 
know a single member in that church. After I had 
been exercising in public about six months, I con- 
cluded I would go to the Grayville meeting. I un- 
derstood that their meeting was held on the third 
Sunday and Saturday before, in each month. Al- 



—i79— 

though I had never been there, I had a great desire 
to be, so in October, after I had begun exercising in 
January, I hurried up with my work during the week, 
in order to be ready to go to Grayville on Saturday. 
When everything was ready I saddled up a two- 
year-old colt that was hardly bridle-wise, and rode 
it down to Grayville, a distance of eighteen miles 
from where I lived. When I arrived in town I took 
my colt to the livery stable, watered it and had it 
fed, as I thought its trip that morning would be hard 
on it. I then went around to the meeting house. 
A panel was knocked out of one of the door shut- 
ters, and I looked through the opening into the 
house, to see how things appeared in there. I wan- 
dered around on the streets, in sight and hearing, 
thinking that they would meet after a while, and 
that when they did, I would be on hand. I waited 
around in that manuer until about three o'clock in 
the afternoon, I did not know any of the mem- 
bers, and might have passed them on the streets and 
would not have known them, neither would they 
have known me. I finally went to a house and made 
some inquiries about the Baptist meeting, and was 
told that this was the time of their meeting, but, 
perhaps, their preacher had not come, as their bell 
had not been rung that day. They told me of a gen- 
tleman living in town whose wife was a member of 
the church ; also where they lived. I went to their 
house and found that the old people were out in 
town somewhere, but, when I mentioned Baptist 
meeting to the children, they started out, and in a 



— i8o— 

few minutes the lady of the house came in. I told 
her who I was and where I lived, and that I had 
come to attend their meeting. She asked me if I 
was a minister. I told her I talked some in public. 
She asked me if I had a horse in town. I told her I 
had, and that it was at the livery stable. She had 
me bring it around, saying that I should stay all 
night with them, and we would have meeting Sun- 
day morning. I remained over night, and, after 
breakfast the next morning I sat around until about 
nine o'clock, when she came to me and told me the 
key to the meeting house was out in the country about 
three miles, and none of the brethren knew anything 
about the meeting, and there was a great deal of 
sickness in the country, and that it would be very in- 
convenient to have meeting that day, as no one 
knew anything about it. Strange as it may seem, 
with all these excuses, I took the hint, saddled my 
horse, and went home. This was my first visit to 
Grayville Church, that was in October, 1865. I was 
then twenty-four years old. Of course this good 
sister was not acquainted with me, and from every 
indication she thought it would not pay to call the 
people together to hear me preach, for I could not 
preach. In this I often think, she was just exactly 
right. I did not then, nor do I yet, when I consider 
the matter, think hard of her for taking no pains in 
trying to get up a meeting for my accommodation. 
In fact, I think that the poorest business that Baptist 
people can be guilty of, is to try to get up a meet- 
ing merely for the accommodation of a minister, 



— i8i— 

when they themselves are not interested in the mat- 
ter. It is certainly a kind of business that is all the 
way across the grain, and I would advise brethren 
and sisters everywhere, on all occasions, to be more 
faithful than that, and to let the preacher know, 
that if they would have meeting, it would be purely 
for his accommodation, and not because the people 
want it. 



CHAPTER XXXVII. 

I think it is very unjust on the part of any who 
have been acquainted with my life as a minister to 
accuse me of being opposed to preaching the gospel 
to every creature, for I take the commission just as 
it reads. When it says go, I believe in going; 
when it says preach, I believe in preaching; and 
when it says preach the gospel, I believe that is 
what ought to be preached ; and when it says to every 
creature, I believe it means to everybody who will 
listen, saint or sinner, rich or poor, black or white, 
great or small, it makes no difference. Preach it to 
every creature. I have tried to the best of my little 
ability to do this for about thirty years. I have been 
governed in more instances by my impressions of 
mind, in selecting a place to preach, than by any 
other one thing. It is pleasant, to be sure, to have 
invitations from brethren to visit them but, if I had 
no impressions to go to a place and no other reason 
for going than that the brethren had invited me, my 



— lS2 — 

experience has taught me that it might possibly be a 
mistake for me to go. I have been in places many 
times, where I had no liberty to preach, and it seemed 
I had no religious enjoyment during my meeting at 
such places. The people were all right and appeared 
to be fond of me and of my company. It seemed 
they failed to see that I did not enjoy the ability that 
I should. When I thought of visiting those places 
again, it seemed to me to be contrary to every indi- 
cation that good would be accomplished. At other 
places I have visited, I thought I was blessed with 
good liberty and that I enjoyed religion and the fel- 
lowship and confidence of the brethren in a manner' 
that was very pleasant. This made me very desir- 
ous of revisiting these places. I have tried to tell 
my people during my little ministry, that there is no 
place nor time when the gospel should be sup- 
pressed, but that we should preach it or be willing 
to preach it at all times and under all circumstances if 
it is necessary to do so. Why should a minister of 
The Gospel not talk about Jesus and his goodness in 
his conversation among strangers, as well as other 
men talk about their callings or business among 
strangers? I have noticed in my travels that men, 
who travel about with shows and musical instruments 
and dances, do not hesitate to go into a hotel or car 
and play their music or sing their foolish songs and 
dance, without ever asking if there is a person pres- 
ent who opposes those things and has no taste for 
them; but if.a minister should go into such places 
;and sing or pray or preach or talk about Jesus and 



-i8 3 - 

his goodness, even religious people would set him 
down as a crank and his influence would be weak- 
ened, because the people would decry him every- 
where as a fanatic on the subject of religion. I have 
thought that this was unfair. 

I am reminded of a little circumstance that oc- 
curred once at Farmersville, Indiana. A friend of 
mine, whose name was Cox, went to Farmersville 
one night to church and one of his neighbors, a 
dutchman, went with him. It was shortly after the 
presidential campaign of Blaine and Cleveland. As 
they went home, the Dutchman made some remark 
to Mr. Cox about the music they had there and in- 
quired why they did not have an organ and a choir. 
Mr. Cox replied that they were poor and not able to 
afford such things, but that they did the best they 
could under the circumstances. "Well," said the 
Dutchman, "I was shust thinking tonight that Cleve- 
land, he hav' a glee-club, and Blaine, he hav' a 
glee-club, and it seemed strange to me that Jesus 
Christ could not hav' a glee-club." I have thought 
many times that the remark of the Dutchman was 
well timed. Why not talk and sing in favor of Jesus 
Christ and his cause, as well as for other causes ? My 
doctrine has always been, that a man who is a Chris- 
tian at all, should be one wherever he is. At home 
in his own family, out on the streets, in the shop, on 
the farm, at the hotel, on the steamboat, in the rail- 
road car or street car, or wherever he is, he should 
be a Christian. And a minister of the gospel 



— i8f— 



should let it be known that he is a servant of Christ 
and a minister of the gospel under every circum- 
stance. 

In August, 1888, through the invitation of the 
brethren in the states of Maryland and Virginia, I 
visited the Ketockton and Ebenezer Associations. 
It was my first trip east and I enjoyed it very much. 
I took my son Lawrence with me, who, as well as 
myself, saw a great many things new to us during 
the trip. After our trip was over, and he had been 
over the city of Washington, through the Capitol, 
the patent office and the museum, the Smithsonian 
Institute and the treasury building, and then had 
hired a bicycle by the hour for two or three hours, 
and had run up and down some of the principal 
streets of the city, had gotten acquainted with a great 
many people during the trip at the Associations we 
attended, it seemed to be a good trip for him as 
well as myself. We started home on Monday morn- 
ing from Luray, were up all night Monday night 
traveling and arrived in Cincinnati for breakfast the 
next morning. Then we came from there on home 
that day. I was tired and not paying very much at- 
tention to anything as we passed along, but he, boy- 
like, was still wideawake and noticing everything as 
we traveled trough the country. Late in the after- 
noon our train pulled into the depot at Princeton, 
Indiana, and while we were stopping, Lawrence 
came to me and said, "Pa, this man over here is cry- 
ing. I wonder what is the matter with him." 



-!8 5 - 

I looked around and saw a young man, nicely dressed, 
intelligent looking, and all alone so far as asso- 
ciates or company was concerned, weeping bitterly. 
No person seemed to pay any attention to him, so I 
went up to him and said, " My friend, can you tell 
me the nature of your trouble?" He told me that 
he had left his home a few days ago in Evansville 
and had gone to Chicago on business. There he 
had received a telegram that his sister had died. He 
had her picture on the seat and was shedding bitter 
tears over it. I saw by the picture that she was 
young and beautiful, and had been called away in 
the very bloom of youth. Her young brother was 
so broken up that it seemed he could not be recon- 
ciled to his loss. I commenced trying to comfort him 
by preaching the gospel to him. I inquired if she was 
interested on the subject of religion, He said she 
was, that she had a good hope in the Savior, had 
been a member of the church for some time, and 
that he had no regrets in regard to her death in that 
direction. I tried to console him with the thought 
that she was called away from the troubles and temp- 
tations of this life, to a better home in heaven ; that 
Jesus was the great antidote of death and it was evi- 
dent that he had taken her away. As I thus tried 
to preach Jesus to him for his comfort and consola- 
tion, other passengers gathered around and seemed 
to be very much interested in my talk to him. I felt 
that it was as much my duty to comfort the distressed 
one place as another. I did not hesitate to talk to 
this strange young man in this manner and feel that 



— 186— 

I should do so again under similar circumstances. I 
believe that there is a time when even wicked men 
will listen to a man talk about Jesus and his good- 
ness to sinners, and that is the time of their afflic- 
tions, bereavements or death. In order to be pre- 
pared to talk to such, we should cultivate the habit 
of talking to people on that subject at any time. I 
have thought perhaps the apostle meant that, when 
he said to his son in the ministry, "Be instant, in 
season and out of season ; reprove, rebuke and exhort 
with all long suffering and doctrine." 



CHAPTER XXXVIII. 

In order that the reader may see that it has been 
necessary for me to defend myself against the accu- 
sation of Anti-missionism, I clip the following from 
an old file of the Church Advocate, of July 15th, 
1878, of which the reader can be his own judge. It 
is as follows: 

Mr. Editor: — I see by your issue of June 5th, 
that Elder Potter has published a challenge, and 
since this same Elder Potter did denounce my doc- 
trine from the stand, with your consent I will ask the 
Elder a few questions. 

Elder Potter, what is the difference in the mean- 
ing of the two words, apostle and missionary f The 
one comes from a Greek term, and means to send-r- 
to send forth. The other from a Latin word, which 
means to send — to send forth. The blessed Jesus 
is called an apostle ; then was He not a missionary ? 
Heb. 3 ;i. The apostles were all sent to preach the 



— 187 — 

gospel. Were they not all missionaries ? Was not 
the Apostolic Church a missionary church? Elder, 
is not the Anti-missionary Baptist Church, of which 
you are a member, divided into factions ? First, the 
two seed party ; second, the anti-means party; and 
third, the means party? To which of these parties 
do you belong? Which is purely Apostolic? Is 
there a man in your denomination that could trans- 
late the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek 
into English ? If so, who is he ? Do not the mis- 
sionaries print the Bible for* your people ? Elder, 
your church refuses to obey the Son of God in the 
great commission given, "Go into all the world and 
preach the Gospel to every creature," and you re- 
fuse to fellowship those who do! On what ground, 
then, do you claim to belong to the only true church 
of God? Elder, when was the commission given by 
Jesus Christ repealed? By whom? 
Yours, 

R. C. Keele. 
Salem, 111., June 9, 1878, — {Baptist Banner.} 

Editorial reply. 

There is certainly as much bigotry and ignorance 
in the above as we have seen lately in the same 
amount of reading. Elder Keele, (we suppose he 
is an Elder, we have no recollection of ever having 
heard of him before), says, "And as this same El- 
der Potter did denounce my doctrine from the stand," 
etc. This is quite likely if he has any doctrine. 
We undertook to get Elder Throgmorton to tell us 
what his doctrine was, when we debated with him, 
and even asked him, when he was contending that 
Christ died for the race of men, if He died for them 
to save them, and he refused to answer. But per- 
haps Elder Keele has a doctrine, as he says we 



— 188— 

denied his doctrine, but what it is we know not. 
But because we denied his doctrine, he asks us the 
above questions. 

On the grounds that "apostle" and "missionary" 
mean "to send — to send forth," he seems to claim 
that the apostles and Missionary Baptists of the 
present age are just the same. Then we are to un- 
derstand that the Apostles of Jesus Christ, and the 
Mission Baptist ministers are just alike because they 
are sent. We may conclude that God's ministers 
and the devil's are alike, for they are both sent. 
The Lord sends His though, and the devil sends his. 
There was a missionary sent to Nehemiah on one 
occasion, with a message ; but Nehemiah says, "And 
lo, I preceived that God had not sent him ; but that 
he had pronounced this prophecy against me: for 
Tobia and Sanballat had hired him!" Neh. vi, 12. 
He is a missionary, if being sent constitutes one ; and 
especially if they must be sent and hired. The apos- 
tles were sent, but they were not hired and sent by a 
"Mission Board," as the Missionary Baptists are, 
for God sent them. The Missionary Baptist preach- 
ers, and the apostles are both sent, but each being 
sent by a different authority, makes all the difference 
between them in the world. But he seems to think 
we are opposed to the name "missionary." The 
main ground our enemies have for thinking we 
oppose the name is that they call us "Anti-mission." 
It is rather hard to call a man by a name that he de- 
nies, and then kill him for having such a name. 

Another word on being sent. The apostles were 
not only sent of the Lord ; but he told his disciples 
to "Pray the Lord to send laborers into the harvest." 
He did not say, get up Mission Boards, and make 
and send them yourselves. We claim to be mission- 
aries, but we believe the Lord will send laborers, or 
He would not have told us to pray for Him to. The 



difference between us and the Missionary Baptists, 
is that we believe in the Lord sending His ministers, 
and that He will do it, and they are fearful He will 
not, and they must send them. "Is not the Anti- 
mission Church, of which you are a member, di- 
vided into factions?" etc. "To which of these par- 
ties do you belong? " Show us the parties you men- 
tion, divided off to themselves under those different 
heads, or names, and we will answer; provided we 
belong to either, and if we do not, we will say so. 

But he asks if we can translate the Bible ; and if 
the missionaries do not print the Bible for our peo- 
ple. If we had a thousand men that were able to 
translate the Bible, we see no necessity for such a 
work, as it was translated by the king's translators, 
and suits us in that translation first-rate. Is that 
what the missionaries are educating men for? We 
are not dependent on the missionaries for Bibles, as 
there are quite a number of publishing companies in 
the United States that print them, and they are not all 
connected with the "Bible Society." We did have 
Bibles before there were any missionary organiza- 
tions in the world, and we know of no reason why 
we could not have them now. But he says our 
church refuses to obey the Son of God in the great 
Commission. This is a grave charge, indeed, and 
if Elder Keele had to be our judge, we presume he 
would cast us off without mercy, for disobedience. 
But we deny the charge, and feel thankful that he is 
not our judge. We will compare notes with him so 
far as that is concereed, and see who comes the 
nearest to obeying the Commission, and before we 
undertake that, we want to know if he is a minister, 
and to what denomination he belongs, and where he 
preaches, and if he is hired, and how much he gets. 
Of all these things we are ignorant, but we will ven- 
ture the assertion that if he is preaching at any 



— 190 — 

stated place or places, that he is hired for a stipu- 
lated salary, in which case he is making no sacrifice 
at all for the Lord, or His people. Hence, he comes 
nearest repealing the Commission by waiting until 
the contract is closed before he goes to work. Come 
again, Mr. Keele, and let us know who you are, 
what you are, and all about it, so we will know who 
it is that asks us so many foolish questions, and is so 
willing to misrepresent us by making the impression 
that we do not believe in preaching, and therefore 
consider the Commission repealed. We are willing 
to take some pains with you, and by the time you 
become informed on the subject of the modern plan 
of Missionism, and Apostolic Missionism, and able 
to draw the contrast between the two, you may be of 
some use ; especially so if the grace of God should 
make its way into your heart. 

Tell us what "my doctrine'' is that you heard us 
deny on the stand, and when and where it was done, 
Ask us a few more questions, and we will give you 
all the information we can. 



— I 9 I— 

CHAPTER XXXIX. 

At the October meeting of the Bethlehem Church, 
in Posey County, Indiana, in 1875, I was elected to 
the pastoral care of that church. I was then living 
in Grayville, Illinois. I served that church as pastor, 
with the exception of an intermission of two years, 
seventeen years. During that time I baptized a 
large number of people, the church seemed to get 
along in peace, and it was very pleasant for me to 
be associated with them. I became familiarly 
acquainted with almost all the people, young and 
old, in that part of Posey county. Very little 
unpleasantness ever existed between myself and any 
of the members of that church, and I think that I 
have seen and felt as many evidences of my call to 
the ministry in my labors at that church, as I have 
at any other one church. During the time of my 
ministry there, they met with the misfortune to lose 
their house by fire. They were abundantly able 
and perfectly willing to build a new one. So they 
appointed a committee to superintend the work, and 
set immediately about it. In a few months they 
had erected on the same spot of ground a large 
frame building, which speaks well for the community 
in which it stands as a house of worship. One 
thing about it is that the building committee never 
made but one report to the church, and that was 
after the house was built and they were using it. 
In that report, they made a statement of how much 
money they had received, how much they had paid 



— 1 9 2 — 

out, and that now the house was built and seated, 
every dollar of its cost was paid. I think that it is not 
often the case, that a church appoints a committee 
to superintend the building of a meeting house, and 
one report is all that it ever makes. There were no 
festivals, nor church dedications, nor anything of the 
sort gotten up for the purpose of building the house. 
It was paid for entirely by voluntary subscriptions, 
from members and friends in that part of the country. 

In December, 1876, I was called to the care of 
Big Creek Church, at Cynthiana, Elder Hume 
having been the pastor of that church before I was 
called. I attended that church fifteen years in suc- 
cession and lived in the immediate neighborhood 
eight years of the time. There was never any 
serious unpleasantness between myself and any of 
the members of that church. It is the church of my 
membership to-day, and is indeed a pleasant place 
for me to visit. I gave up these two churches of 
my own accord, recommending Elder Schultz as a 
man whom I thought they would be glad to have. 
He is now their pastor, and is highly esteemed by 
them for his work's sake. 

In July, 1881, I was called to the care of Bethel 
Church, at Farmersville. This church was in a cold 
state when I took charge of it, having had consider- 
able trouble among themselves, which they perhaps 
have not yet gotten entirely over. The congrega- 
tion was small, and it seemed that there was not a 
great deal of interest manifested among the mem- 
bers of that church, at that time. I had not made 



— m— 

very many visits, however, until I thought I could 
see that the interest was growing. I began to tell 
the brethren of other churches, that I believed Bethel 
Church was going to revive, but I was sometimes 
met with this reply: that they thought Bethel 
Church was about done, that it had been on the 
down grade until it had about got to the bottom, and 
they had concluded it never would revive. The 
second year that I preached for them, I baptized 
between twenty and thirty people, and have bap- 
tized during the time that I have preached for them, 
thirty-five or forty, and perhaps more than that. We 
have had some glorious meetings at that church, and 
no unpleasantness ever occurred to amount to non- 
fellowship between me and any of her members. 
Perhaps there is not a member in it, now, who 
would object to my being pastor of their church, 
if they had no pastor and were going to elect 
one. I gave that church up, after preaching for it 
most of the time for about ten years, because I had 
too much else to do and could not attend it regularly. 
I recommended Elder Willis, who is their present 
pastor and with whom they are well pleased. His 
labors have been abundantly blessed in that church. 
In the year 1883, at the July meeting, I was called 
to the care of Bethany Church. That gave me four 
churches in Posey County. I preached for that 
church seven years, without any intermission, and in 
that time baptized upwards of thirty-five people. 
This church had been in some trouble years before 
that time, which it had hardly gotten over, and it 



—194— 

had some little troubles in the year after I commenced 
attending it. It numbered about sixty members 
when I took it, and when I gave it up it numbered 
about eighty-five members. The congregation was 
large and interesting, and I have certainly enjoyed 
some as bright evidences of my call to the ministry, 
both at Bethany and Bethel Churches, as I ever have 
anywhere. Those churches are dear to me, and 
their members seem to-day as if they were my own 
children. Elder Schultz is the pastor of this church 
and it is in a good, prosperous condition so far as I 
know. For the first few years after I began preach- 
ing for these four churches, it was no trouble for me 
to go into the neighborhood on Friday before their 
meetings, and visit from house to house over the 
neighborhood, during the two days I was there. I 
could start out on foot as soon as I had my breakfast, 
cross fields and fences, and call at half a dozen 
houses before meeting time in the morning. My 
object was to be at as many of their houses as I pos- 
sibly could. I enjoyed visiting them in their homes 
and talking to them on the subject of religion. If 
any troubles arose among them, I made it a point to 
try to get them adjusted as soon as I could. By 
having the care of those churches so long I came as 
near being personally acquainted with the people of 
Posey County, and especially the portion of the 
county where those churches are located, as any one 
man, perhaps, who ever preached in the county. 
The people seem near to me, and I certainly do feel 
at home among them. I moved to that county from 



—i95— 

Grayville, on the first day of December, 1880, and 
have been living in the state of Indiana ever since. 

In 1885, I was called to the care of the church at 
Owensville. They elected me at their November 
meeting, which was on the fourth Sunday and Sat- 
urday before, in the month. Before their Decem- 
ber meeting rolled around, I engaged in a six days' 
debate with Mr. Yates, of the Cumberland Presby- 
terian Church, at Owensville, on the subject of 
"Foreign Missions." We debated six days to a 
very large and enthusiastic crowd of people. Mr. 
Yates is a man who is well posted, and he has extraor- 
dinary ambition and ability. During the discussion, 
I made the statement on the first day, that I did not 
believe that all the missionaries, with all their friends 
and all they had ever done, had been or would be 
the cause of a single soul being saved, that would 
not have been saved without them. When I made 
this statement, quite a number of his brethren jumped 
to get their note books to note it down, as if they 
were very much surprised at me for making such a 
statement. I put the same question to him and he 
refused to answer, until the fourth day of the debate, 
in the afternoon, when his moderator suggested that 
he was under obligations to answer it. During that 
discussion, I had an eye all the time to future work 
among the people of Owensville and vicinity. 
While I believed that I was capable of defending 
the doctrine that I believed on the subject of mis- 
sions and the preaching of the gospel, I felt that I 
had the good will of the community. After the de- 



— 196 — 

bate was over, I held my first meeting in December. 
At the January meeting following, the church re- 
ceived one member for baptism ; at the February 
meeting, I commenced on Saturday before the fourth 
Sunday and continued meeting until the next Sun- 
day a week at night, and during that time received 
nineteen members for baptism ; at the April meeting, 
the church had received twenty-six members. This 
caused great jealousy on the part of other denomi- 
nations. As the Regular Baptists were the only 
people in Ovvensville or even in that part of the coun- 
try anywhere who practiced strict communion, the 
preachers of other denominations began to argue the 
communion question with my people and with any- 
one who they thought was likely to join the Regular 
Baptists. A Mr. Hale, of the General Baptist de- 
nomination was publishing a paper there, in which 
he had a great deal to say on the question of the 
communion. I finally called on him at his office 
and asked him to meet me at the Regular Baptist 
Church and discuss the question of the communion, 
which he refused to do, stating that he was opposed 
to debates, and thought that the time for public dis- 
cussions on the subject of religion had passed away. 
I then made the announcement that I would lecture 
at Owensvilre, on the subject of the communion, 
commencing on a certain Monday night, and contin- 
uing until I was through, and that any man who 
would undertake the other side of the question 
should have half of the time, if he would come on 
at that time. No man saw fit to do so and I deliv- 



—i 9 7— 

ered my four lectures on the communion at Owens- 
ville, and those are the circumstances that brought 
them about. So this is a brief history of my labors 
among the five churches that I have already men- 
tioned in Indiana. These churches are all prosper- 
ous and have the labors of good, efficient and earn- 
est young men, who are their pastors, sound in 
faith and zealous for the cause of Christ. 



CHAPTER XL. 

During the time I was preaching for the churches 
that I have already mentioned in the preceding 
chapter, I became impressed to visit the Mount 
Pleasant Church, in the neighborhood of where 
Griffin now is. I was deeply impressed for at least 
a year and a half to go to that church and preach, 
before I had an opportunity to do so. I had the care 
of five churches and frequently told Elders Hume, 
Strickland and Oliphant that if I could be released 
from one of them, I believed that the Lord would 
revive that little church, if I could go there and 
preach. Mount Pleasant Church was very weak, 
having only perhaps a dozen members. They had 
no preacher and it seemed that the last one or two 
preachers, they did have, left them in a worse condi- 
tion than they had found them. I suppose fully 
eight years elapsed after the time I had preached in 
that neighborhood, before I went back. During 
that time a great change had been made in the mem- 



IQS — 



bership of the church and also in the citizenship of the 
neighborhood. A railroad had been run through 
the neighborhood and a little town built up. I did 
not know who lived there. After studying the mat- 
ter over and feeling so deeply impressed, I finally 
met with a friend of mine who lived in that vicinity. 
I told him that I had thought for some time that I 
would love to go down and preach at Griffin. That 
was the name of the little town which had sprung 
up. He was a member of another denomination, 
but a personal friend of mine, and he spoke rather 
favorably of my coming down to preach. The 
Regular Baptists had no house in that neighborhood. 
The old house that they had formerly occupied had 
become so dilapidated that it was not fit for 
meetings, but there was a house built in the little 
village by the people, which seemed to bea union 
house. It was controlled by the Campbellites but 
was free for the use of other denominations when 
not occupied by them. After talking the matter 
over with my friend, I finally told him that I would 
be at Griffin on the next Tuesday, at eleven o'clock, 
and that he might have it announced for me. I told 
him to tell the people that I did not know T how long 
I would stay. The next Saturday, after the Tues- 
day my meeting began, was Christmas day, and the 
people in that neighborhood loved to have a great 
deal of fun about Christmas time, as is common 
with a great many people, who are located back in 
the river bottoms. Griffin had the name of being a 
hard place at the time, and was very commonly 



— i 9 9— 

known as the "Blind Tiger." There were two or 
three saloons in the little place, and they were well 
patronized. 

On Tuesday morning, when I was preparing to 
start, I told my wife that she might put a change of 
clothing in my satchel, for I expected to baptize 
some while I was gone, and I would need them if I did. 
She thought I was rather too sanguine about the 
matter, and replied to me that if I found anybody 
that wanted to be baptized, I would. also find clothes 
to wear. So I went and commenced my meeting on 
Tuesday at eleven o'clock, and continued it for four 
days and nights. In that time the church received 
four candidates for baptism. I was not surprised at 
that, for I had been deeply impressed before I left 
home that the church would certainly revive if they 
had regular preach'.ng. In a few weeks I went back 
and held meeting a day or two, and received three 
more members. I visited them frequently as oppor- 
tunity offered, until other brethren began going there 
to preach, and occasionally there would be one or 
more added to the church. Finally they elected 
a regular pastor, and they have had regular preach- 
ing ever since. I believe that I attended them as 
pastor one year. Other brethren have visited and 
preached for them, and to-day they number in the 
neighborhood of fifty members. They have built a 
nice house to worship in, in the little town, at a cost 
of nearly one thousand dollars. I regard this as an 
evidence that I was impressed by the Divine Spirit 
to go to that place and preach, and I have noticed 



-200 



that to follow such impressions is almost infallibly 
to see the same results that I saw there. The 
churches are in good condition throughout this 
country. 

After a while there seemed to be a great interest 
at Wadesville in favor of the Baptists, and I became 
very much concerned in favor of a church at Wades- 
ville, provided we could obtain a house at that place. 
Matters finally adjusted themselves in such a way 
that our people bought a controlling interest in the 
house at Wadesville, and we constituted a church 
there with seventeen members, in the year 1891. I 
have had the care of that church as her pastor all the 
time since her constitution, and she now numbers 
forty members. We have had very interesting times 
at that church, as well as at all the churches of 
which I have had the pastoral care. The churches 
of Posey County are as strong numerically, as they 
were when I first began to preach for them, and 
some of them are considerably stronger. The Bap- 
tists of these churches are sound, faithful brethren, 
none of them that I know of being the least tinc- 
tured with Armenianism or anti-nomianism, but 
primitive Baptists, who love to hear the doctrine and 
practice of the Baptists vindicated. 

Before dismissing this chapter, I will state that 
the churches I have mentioned heretofore were the 
churches among whom Elders Hume and Strickland 
labored most of their ministerial lives. Those 
churches never did divide on missionism, two-seed- 
ism, no-soulism, non-resurrectionism, nor the means 



201 

question, nor any other "ism." Some of them date 
as far back in their constitutions as 1806, and there is 
not a Missionary Baptist Church in the County, nor in 
the bounds of the Salem Association. The General 
Baptists, who are full-fledged Armenians, and free- 
communionists, are the only body of religionists in 
the bounds of the Salem Association who claim the 
name of Baptists, except our people. The difference 
between our people and the General Baptists is so 
great, that there never was much danger of a man 
being mistaken and joining one of these denomina- 
tions when he intended to join the other. This is 
not true in every case where there are Missionary 
Baptists, for I feel confident that the Missionaries 
to-day have in their churches hundreds and thousands 
of our people ; and the way they get them is by tell- 
ing the people that there is really no difference of 
importance between us, and that their churches are 
flourishing. They get a great many people to join 
them, who in heart are really our people. 



-202- 



CHAPTER XLI. 



In my efforts to preach, I have had a great many 
pleasant times in trying to proclaim the gospel to a 
dying world. There is nothing more pleasant to me 
than to be blessed with ability and deep personal 
interest while I try to proclaim life and salvation 
through a crucified and risen Redeemer. I have 
thought many times during my ministry that I could 
do better and realize the presence of the Lord more 
sensibly, if I could keep self out of my discourses. 
That has been one of the hardest things for me to 
control, and I have suffered a great deal because I 
could not be farther away from self in my efforts to 
preach, in my prayers, and in my exercises generally 
in the service of the Lord. While I have had many 
pleasant times among the brethren, I have been made 
to feel frequently that the brethren were ungrateful 
for my services and did not appreciate me as I de- 
served. At times, on that account, I have been very 
miserable. I think, however, that this was a temp- 
tation from the evil one, for I know when I look back 
over my life that the brethren have been kind to me. 
They have treated me better than they have a great 
many others, who perhaps are as good as I am in 
every way and more able to preach the gospel. I 
have many times in my life made complete failures 
when I expected to preach well, and I wish to give 
one or two instances of my experience in that direc- 
tion. 

When I was very young in the ministry, I think it 



— 203— 

was in the year 1870, I lived in the neighborhood of 
Long Prairie Church, in Illinois. I worked on a 
farm in those days and tried to make my own living. 
One time, while I was out in the fields at work, a 
text of Scripture came into my mind and I thought 
a great many good things in connection with it. I 
could see more beauty in it than I ever had before 
and thought I understood some things about it that 
I had never heard anyone say anything about. I felt 
certain that the ideas I had upon it were correct, 
although I had never thought of them before. With 
these ideas in my mind, I thought if I were going to 
preach now, that would be my text. And, working 
along, the text remained with me until finally the 
thought occurred to me that, next Saturday being our 
meeting time, I would certainly preach from that 
text some time during the meeting. There were two 
or three other preachers, who were members of the 
same church, and we usually divided the time among 
us at our regular meetings, so the probabilities were 
that I would not get to preach just when I would 
like to. It would suit me best to preach from this 
text on Sunday, as more people would be likely to 
be present then, than at any other -time during the 
meeting. From this time on until meeting time, I 
studied about this text and felt confident that I would 
try to preach from it the first opportunity I had before 
a good congregation. I felt that I would not preach 
it to a small crowd. If I was called on to preach 
on Saturday, I would use some other text and save 
this one until I had a large crowd, for it would be 



— 204 — 

too good a sermon for just a few to hear. I went to 
meeting on Saturday, and we had our ordinary 
attendance, and some of the other brethren preached. 
I was glad of that, for it was a pretty fair indication 
that I would get to preach on Sunday ; and I felt 
that when I did get up, the people would hear 
something. We had meeting Saturday night, and, 
as I went to the meeting house, I thought that if 
there was a pretty fair crowd out and I was 
called on to preach, I might preach my sermon 
that night, lest I might not have an opportunity to 
preach it on Sunday. When I entered the house 
and looked around, I thought to myself "This crowd 
will do very well, and if the brethren insist on my 
preaching to-night, I will only be just a little back- 
ward, enough for good manners, and I will preach 
my sermon." So, when the time came for preaching, 
the brethren insisted that I must preach. I went 
into the pulpit, asked one brother to introduce ser- 
vices for me, took the Bible down off the stand, 
and was going to turn to the text, but by the time I 
had gotten the Bible down, ready to open it, I had 
forgotten where the text was. Then I studied a 
moment to try to call to mind where it was. Then 
I studied a moment to try to think what the text was. 
I could not call it to mind. I then tried to call to 
mind some of the things I had thought about it and 
I could not. By this time I began to be wretched. 
I raised up and looked over the pulpit, (it was one 
of those old-fashioned pulpits, closed up in front, ) 
and I looked at the congregation and thought "I do 



— 205— 

wish there were not so many people here." I wished 
that I were out of the stand and that I did not have 
to try to preach. My text was gone, my sermon was 
gone, everything that I had ever thought about that 
text was gone, and I had no message for this people. 
I never have known from that moment to this what 
that text was, nor anything I had ever thought about 
it. I may have used it many times since then as a 
text, but if I have I do not know it. I took some 
other text and whiled away a portion of the time. 
When I went out of the stand that night I was as 
completely whipped as was ever a poor servant of 
the Lord, which at that time I could not think I was. 
I abominated the thought of depending upon myself 
and felt that I ought to apologize to the people for 
ever offering to talk to them on the subject of 
religion. I never could make any calculations 
about preaching and then work up to them. 

Another circumstance that occurred in my minis- 
try was later in life. I was still living in Illinois, and 
Elder Lewis Hon and myself were the delegates to 
the Little Wabash Association. I had not been with 
the Little Wabash Association for two or three 
years. When I was younger I had been in the 
habit of going about every year, besides visiting 
among the churches at other times in the year. 
When we got there I met a great many old brethren 
and sisters, whom I had met many times. They 
seemed so very glad to see me that they made use of 
such expressions as these: "I am glad to see your 
face once more," "It seems like old times to see 



-2o6- 



you among us again," "Why did you stay away so 
long?" "I am eager to hear your voice again," 
which were very pleasant. I finally began to be 
anxious to preach to them, and thought that if I had 
an opportunity to preach they would think of 
old times, more than simply to see me. To my 
satisfaction, there was an appointment made for me 
at the house of a Brother Sands, for Friday night, 
which was the first night of the Association. I was 
glad and a great many people assembled at Brother 
Sands' before night. Although there were other 
appointments in the neighborhood not far away, yet 
it seemed that most of the people had come to my 
meeting. By this time I had lost what little sense I 
had ever had about preaching. When the hour 
drew near for the services to begin, I made ready 
without any hesitancy whatever, selected my text 
and song to introduce services, and when the time 
came, I was ready. There were several ministers 
present sitting around me, but I aid not think to in- 
vite any of them to take any part. When I was 
ready to begin, I told some of the brethren to be 
ready to conclude the meeting when I was through 
preaching. I did not ask them to preach any after 
me, for I expected to do all the preaching that would 
be needed that night. When I commenced reading 
my song, it seemed that my voice was in an un- 
natural key, and that I could not get it toned down 
to a natural, easy key. During the prayer it seemed 
that I had no voice, but I felt that when I got to 
preaching I would be all right. I read my text and 



207 

commenced talking. In a few minutes I found my- 
self talking in a very uneasy, low, dragging, un- 
natural monotone. As I could not change my voice 
from that way, I concluded that I would begin anew 
and see if I could not start out better. In the course 
of twenty minutes or so, I made about three efforts 
to start and "Failure" was written on each one of 
them. By this time I came to the conclusion that 
I could not preach, so I quit, saying to the brethren, 
"Brethren, some of you preach, for you see I cannot 
preach a bit." Brother Hon arose and commenced 
preaching. I felt that he thought it would be a good 
time for him to beat me preaching, also that he 
would make use of the opportunity. I did wish that 
he could not preach a word, and felt that I wanted 
him to quit every moment of the time. But he did 
not do it ; he went on and preached and labored 
hard. Toward the last of his sermon a young sister 
was very deeply affected, and I concluded that he 
wanted her to shout before he quit. I was not in a 
spirit of mischief, for I was feeling sad and almost 
out of humor, but I did wish the girl would shout so 
he would quit. I felt almost confident that he 
wanted her to shout, and did not intend to quit until 
she did. Finally I thought he gave the matter up, 
for he closed his discourse ; (a man you know can 
think anything but what is right, when he is in such 
a frame of mind as I was.) I do not know how 
many brethren remember that occurrence, but I am 
satisfied that there are ministers living to-day, as well 
as many other brethren, who, if they chance to read 



-208- 



this page, will remember the whole circumstance. 
I give these two instances to show that I, for one, 
cannot preach every time I want to. I am still as 
dependent on the Lord for ability to preach, as I 
ever was in my life. I know that it is wrong for me 
to calculate that I am going to preach a big sermon, 
because I never did make any such calculations 
without being disappointed in the arrangement. I 
would say to the brethren generally, that perhaps the 
admonition of the apostle is as applicable to my case 
in such circumstances as to any other man in the 
world; that is, "He that standeth, let him take 
heed lest he fall." 



CHAPTER XLII. 

In the summer of 1880 I made a trip down into 
the state of Alabama, at the invitation of Elder 
Purifoy. I left home about the 28th day of July. 
The weather was intensely warm, and on the way 
from Evansville to Nashville the train came to a 
broken bridge about thirty miles north of Nashville. 
It was about five o'clock in the afternoon when we 
got to this bridge. When the train stopped and the 
passengers learned of the trouble, as is natural, we 
all went out to see the damaged bridge and what 
must be done in order to insure our safe crossing. 
The train finally ran back to a station at Springfield, 
Tennessee, and took a position on a side track to 
wait for the bridge to be repaired, so that we could 



— 209 — 

pass over. Some time after sunup the next morning 
found us still waiting and we did not dare to leave 
the train even to get refreshments, for fear of being 
left, for we were not likely to receive any notice of 
the starting of the train. During the night I tried to 
sleep, but I had no better bed than a seat in the car. 
There were so many of the passengers awake and 
talking all the time and so much moving and stirring 
about that it was impossible to sleep. There was a 
gentleman aboard the train who was a minister of 
some branch of the Presbyterian Church and he was 
a good talker. He came aboard the train, I think, 
at Hopkinsville, Ky., and I soon learned that he was 
a preacher, for the people seemed to be well ac- 
quainted with him. When I found that I was not 
likely to get to sleep any, I felt that the hours whiled 
away very slowly, and I did wish I had some person 
to talk to, but there was not a person on the train 
that I knew or that knew me. I thought that if I 
could get acquainted with the Presbyterian minister, 
I would not be so lonesome, for he seemed to be 
good company ; but I had no one to introduce me to 
him, and I did not wish to be forward in introducing 
myself to strangers in a place like that. I noticed 
him and another gentleman in conversation and I 
overheard the other man tell him that he would love 
to hear him give his reasons for infant baptism. He 
agreed to do so, and they sat down, and I moved 
near them so I could hear. He began to tell the 
man that God always takes families by their repre- 
sentatives, as He did Adam, Abraham, Jacob and 



■2 IO- 



SO on. If the father or the mother of the child is a 
believer, or if they are both believers, then the child 
is to be admitted to baptism. He said that if the 
Baptist doctrine were true, that the child was to be 
denied baptism because it was not a believer itself, 
and no one believed for it, then the same thing that 
cuts it out of baptism would cut it out of heaven. I 
listened to him until he got through, and I saw that 
the other man did not seem disposed to differ from 
him, so I told him that I would like to ask him a 
question, if it would not be an intrusion. He looked 
at me somewhat suspiciously, and said, in rather a 
gruff manner, I thought, "What is it?" I told him 
that in the second chapter of The Acts, we read : 
"And as many as gladly received his word were bap- 
tized, and there were added to them that day 

about three thousand what?" he said, "three 

thousand souls." I told him that I did not know 
but what it should have been families. He sprang 
to his feet and pranced around somewhat like a horse 
with sore feet, and said, "If that is the way you are 
going to treat the Bible, like an Irishman would a 
pile of rock, take up one at a time and throw at an 
opponent, you can prove anything." I said, "You 
are a preacher, are you not?" He said he was. 
Well, I told him that I did not think he would be 
likely to convert many people, if that was his manner 
of talking to them, I told him that I had permission 
to ask him that question, and that I now asked him 
to sit down here and talk to me ; for I had done noth- 



■211- 



ing to deserve such treatment as that. He came to 
his seat in as fine a humor as I ever saw a man, and 
from that moment he was so polite and gentlemanly, 
that it was a complete apology for the way he had 
acted. I called on him to give me his reasons for 
infant baptism, and he began as he had done before, 
saying about the same things. He repeated, that 
according to the Baptist doctrine,- that the infant was 
not to be baptized on the ground that it did not be- 
lieve itself and no one believed for it, the very same 
thing that would cut it out of baptism would cut it 
out of heaven. After passing some words and quot- 
ing a few texts of Scripture, I asked him if he bap- 
tized all infants. He said he would baptize any 
infant whose father or mother or guardian was a 
believer. I asked him if he would baptize a child 
whose parents or guardian were not believers. He 
said he would not. I asked him why. He said, 
because they do not believe and no one believes for 
them. I told him that I had heard him say twice 
that if infants were to be cut out of baptism on the 
grounds that they do not believe, and no one believes 
for them, that the same thing that would cut them 
out of baptism would cut them out of heaven. Now, 
Sir, said I, according to your rule, some infants are 
cut out of baptism because they do not believe and 
no one believes for them. You say that if that is 
what cuts them out of baptism, the same thing will 
cut them out of heaven. I claim, Sir, that in your 
doctrine, some infants are cut out of heaven. He 
did not fight for his position, nor did he take it 



•212- 



back, but I was confident that he felt the weight of 
his own argument when it fell back upon his own 
head. 



CHAPTER XLIII. 

I have heard all my life that the Regular Baptists 
are long-winded. It has been said many times that 
if they have a half dozen ministers present they must 
all preach. People have said many times that they 
did wish they had their dinners with them. I was 
at a meeting at Middle Fork Church, called Webb's 
Prairie, Franklin County, Ills., on one occasion, and 
after services were over on Sunday, arrangements 
were made for me to go to a house not far away for 
dinner. A surrey was going to that place, in which 
there was room for me, and I was instructed to ride. 
I took a seat in the surrey with a lady, who was a 
total stranger to me. In fact, the entire crowd were 
strangers to me. I do not even know their names 
now. But we had not gone far before the lady sitting 
with me began to complain of the "Hardshells" for 
preaching so long. I had conducted the services 
myself that day, and there was no other minister there 
and she knew it. Yet, as if she thought I did not 
have any better sense than to allow her to abuse me 
to my face, she indulged in her strictures to her 
friends in the surrey as we went along the road. I 
asked her if she was a church member. She said she 
was a member of the Missionary Baptist Church. 



21 



I told her that I did not think that the Missionary 
Baptists had any right to complain of us. or any one 
else for long services ; for they begin a meeting in 
the fall of the year and run it through the most of the 
winter, sometimes, and they often begin their night 
meetings at an early hour, and run them until ten 
o'clock, or later. We had never held such meetings, 
and I thought that it was unjust to blame us for long 
services. I told her I did not think it looked well, 
especially for the Missionary Baptists to speak of it 
in such a manner. 

" Oh!" she said, "Our minister never talks more 
than thirty-five or forty minutes, and we think that is 
plenty long enough for a sermon." I told her that 
I thought so too, for the sort of stuff he preached, I 
would not want to listen to it any longer than that 
myself. " But," I said, "if he had good newsforyou, 
and you loved what he preached, you would not get 
tired of hearing him even if he should preach an hour 
or more." She seemed willing to drop the subject, 
so I said no more about it, and we went on and had 
a very pleasant time. 



—2i 4 — 
CHAPTER XLIV. 

I once took a trip to the churches in the bounds 
of the Little Wabash Association in Illinois, and when 
my tour ended I was conveyed by a good brother to 
Odin, a station at the crossing of the O. & M. and 
I. C. Railroads, in Marion County. It was late in 
the afternoon when we got there, and the brother 
had to return home, so I was left alone to wait until 
about ten o'clock for my train. There was no one 
about the station that I knew, and a great portion of 
the time there was no one in the room but myself. 
I never was much of a coward about traveling, as I 
have never seen many times that I was scared or 
even uneasy when away from home. I have gone 
several times in life two or three days at a time with- 
out seeing any one that I knew. I have arrived in 
strange cities and towns in the night, have landed 
off of steamboats, and have gotten up at hotels at all 
hours in the night, at strange places, to meet trains 
or boats, and I never did feel the least uneasy under 
such circumstances, except a very few times in all 
my travels. I am not of a very excitable nature, and 
have always been slow about being suspicious of 
danger. On this occasion, some time after dark, 
three or four men entered th,e waiting room and acted 
very strangely. They passed all around me, and 
seemed to gaze at me as if they thought they knew 
me. They seated themselves in the room, and they 
all seemed to have their eyes steadily fixed upon me, 
but they did not say a word to me, nor to each other. 



-2I 5 - 

After sitting awhile, they arose and walked out, and 
in a short time they returned and took their seats 
again, as they had done before, still looking at me 
very suspiciously. I did not feel uneasy, and yet I 
felt confident that I was the special object of their 
attention. I had heard before of Odin, that it was 
rather a hard place, and that travelers had been mo- 
lested, and some of them robbed there. I thought 
of these things, but the room was well lighted up, 
and the Agent and Operator were in their offices. I 
did not fear that they would undertake any foul play 
with me, if I remained in the room. They again 
left the room and I was alone. Some time after, I 
discovered one of them in the ticket office, gazing at 
me through the ticket window. In all this time not 
a word was said by them to me nor to each other. 
Before the train came, I found out that it was the 
sheriff of the county, and a posse that he had with 
him, who were on the hunt of a horse thief. When 
I heard all this I felt certain that I was in great dan- 
ger of being arrested, for if I had offered to leave 
the room while they were watching so closely, they 
would have been very apt to have laid hold of me. 
It is a wonder that 1 did not get up and walk around, 
for I am of such a restless temperament that I hardly 
ever sit still very long at a time, when I am waiting 
for a train, especially if I have been away from home 
several days, and am trying to get back. I feel 
almost certain that if I had made an attempt to walk 
out I would have been arrested by this company ; 
that is before thev became satisfied that I was not 



2 1 6— 

the man they were on the hunt of. They, however, 
did not interrupt me, and I bought my ticket, and 
when the train came I was permitted to board it as 
usual and go home. I felt thankful to the Lord that 
I was not a horse thief, and I adopted the language 
of the great apostle to the Gentiles, "It is by the 
grace of God that I am what I am." If I am any 
better than others, it is not by nature, but it must be 
that grace has made the difference. So, the Lord 
should have all the glory, while I get all the benefit 
of his mercy and grace. 



CHAPTER XLV. 

One time, at an Association, I met a lady who, I 
was told, belonged to the Methodist Church, and 
was not in the habit, of hearing our people preach. 
She was not acquainted with our ways and customs. 
I felt confident that she had heard that the Old Bap- 
tists were selfish and clannish, and that if she could 
not learn better about us, she would not enjoy her- 
self very well at our Association. She had come 
some distance with a family of our people, who 
lived out of the immediate neighborhood of the 
Baptists. In the afternoon I thought I would con- 
verse with her on the subject of religion, if by that 
means I might make her feel more welcome among 
us. So I began by asking her some questions, and 
she began to object. She said she was not going to 
argue with me. I told her that I did not wish to 



' — 217 — 

argue, but that I preferred to talk about matters 
upon which we agreed. I told her that I thought 
we might talk about our experiences without differ- 
ing, and if we could I would enjoy it very much. 
She said that she had no objection whatever to tell- 
ing her experience, if that was all I wished to talk 
about. She stated that she had an experience and 
not only that, but she thought she had the most 
singular experience, perhaps, that I had ever heard. 
She then proceeded to relate her Christian experi- 
ence, which was good, and she said that she had 
realized that experience when she was very young. 
After that she joined the Methodist Church, and 
finally she married a good man., and became the 
mother of two or three sweet little children. She 
said she thought that she ought to be the happiest 
woman in the world. She had everything to make 
her happy. She had a good hope in Jesus, was a 
member of the church, was blessed with a pleasant 
home, a good, kind husband and a sweet little 
family. 

But soon the terrible wrecker of homes, the grim 
monster, death, invaded this lovely home, and took 
one of her children. She said that during her grief 
and mourning over the loss of her darling child, once 
in a while the thought would suggest itself to her, 
that God was unjust, to treat her so ; but she would 
not allow herself to harbor such a thought for a 
moment. She went on and tried to feel reconciled, 
and finally another of her loved ones sickened and 
died. After this one was gone, the same thought 



-2 1 8- 



would come into her mind that surely God is unjust. 
Under this weighty cross of affliction and the loss ot 
her family, she gave up her place in the church and 
tried to conclude that there was nothing real in 
religion. She tried for ten years from that on to be 
an infidel, but she said that there was a dissatisfac- 
tion in her mind about it all the time. She would 
speak out against religion and in favor of infidelity, 
yet she could not feel clear in her conscience, in 
denying the Lord. However, she went on in this 
way for ten years, trying all the time to be an infidel, 
but she could not. At the end of ten years she gave 
up her infidelity and went back to the church. Since 
then she had gotten along about as other people, 
sometimes up in her feelings and sometimes down, 
but down most of the time. She often thought that 
if she was a Christian she was just a little one. 

I said to her that I thought her experience was 
very interesting, but I thought she was indeed a 
child of God. I asked her if she went back to the 
Methodist Church. She said she did. I asked her 
if she believed the doctrine of the Methodist Church. 
"O yes," she said, "I believe their doctrine." I 
asked her if they did not believe that a saint could 
apostatize, fall from grace and be eternally lost. 
She said they did. Well, said I you do not believe 
that doctrine, do you? She said, yes, she believed 
it. Well, said I, how long does it take a Christian 
to fall from grace ? You said that you tried it for 
ten years and could not fall. She said she had never 
thought of that. She became very much interested 



— 219 — 

in our preaching during the Association, and seemed 
to be free and at home among our people. I was 
glad that I had accomplished my purpose in trying 
to make her feel that our people were her friends, 
even if they did differ in their views. 



CHAPTER XLVI. 

While I lived at Grayville, Illinois, my county 
town was Carmi, the county seat of White county. 
I sometimes had business there and would usually 
go down on the train, after the railroad was built 
through there. At one time I went down on a little 
business and after I was through, having nothing 
else to do, I walked over to the depot and arrived 
there an hour or more before the train was due. 
There was no one in the waiting room, and thinking 
an hour would be a long time for me to sit there 
alone, I walked out. Over the way I noticed a 
company of men sitting around on the doorstep of 
a store, so I went over there. I knew none of them, 
and I am satisfied that none of them knew me. The. 
most of the crowd were rather young, but one of 
them was an elderly looking man. The topic of 
their conversation was the election of township 
officers in the county, which had taken place very 
recently. I took a seat in a chair just inside the 
door, and listened to them. Once in a while I would 
join them in their conversation. Finally we saw a 
man coming past with a load of hay on a wagon, and 



220 

his team consisted of three animals, two horses at 
the tongue and a mule in front, or two mules at the 
tongue and a horse in front, I am not certain which. 
A boy was riding the front animal, and a man was 
up on the load of hay. The novelty of the outfit 
had its attractions, and if I had noticed it, I would 
have known the old gentleman. After he had gone 
out of sight, one of the crowd remarked, "I thought 
that was a preacher." "Was he a preacher?" said 
the old man. "Who is it?" "John Haynes," said 
the other. I was well acquainted with Brother John 
Haynes, but he was gone and I said nothing. The 
old man asked what sort of a preacher he was, and 
the other answered that he was a Baptist. "What, 
a Missionary Baptist?" "No, a Hard Side Baptist," 
the young man replied. "O well," said the old 
man, "that is enough for me, if he is a Hard Side 
Baptist, I have no use for him. They preach infants 
to hell, and I do not like them. I do not like the 
Methodists either, for they preach falling from grace, 
and according to that doctrine, I think when they do 
get good, they should get some one to kill them, so 
they will not have to run the risk of falling from 
grace." I said to him, "What do you like?" He 
said, "The Missionary Baptists." "What objection 
have you to the Methodists?" I asked. He said, 
"They believe in falling from grace, and infant bap- 
tism, and infant church membership, and I do not 
believe in any of those things." I asked, "What 
did you say the man was that passed with the team ?" 
(I did not want him to know what I was yet.) He 



■221- 



said, "He is a Hard Side Baptist." I asked, "What 
are your objections to them?" He said that they 
preached infants to hell. I asked him if he ever 
heard one of them preach that. He said he had. 
He had heard a man preach it by the name of Hume. 
I asked him where he had heard him preach it. He 
said at Mt. Pleasant Church, I knew where Mt. 
Pleasant Church was. I asked him what Hume said, 
and he replied that Hume said it was his opinion 
that there were infants in hell. ".And you heard 
him say it?" I said. He said he did, and that he 
could prove it by as good men as there were in 
Wayne County. I told him that I did not doubt 
that he could prove it, for that matter. He stormed 
out, "May be you do not believe he said it." I told 
him that I knew he did not say it, that I did not be- 
lieve anything about it. I told him that I was 
acquainted with Elder Hume, and I had heard him 
preach many times, and that I had heard him say 
often that he had never preached it, for he did not 
believe it, and I knew that he had never heard him 
say it. I told him that I was pretty well acquainted 
with the Hard Side Baptists, as he called them, and 
that I knew that they did not preach anything of the 
sort. He asked me if I was a Hard Side Baptist, 
and I told him that it was no difference to him what 
I was, and that he had never heard them preach in- 
fants to hell. He got up, looked up and down the 
street, brushed himself, and said, "Boys, let us go," 
and they left me alone, but in more agreeable com- 
pany. 



222 

CHAPTER XLVII. 

On one occasion, I took a trip to New Hope 
Church, in Hamilton County, Illinois, to attend a 
funeral, or rather to preach a funeral discourse. I 
got off the train at McLeansboro, and preached there 
on Friday night, and then went out ten miles into the 
country on Saturday morning, with a company of 
brethren from town. At my meeting at McLeans- 
boro, there was a Campbellite preacher by the name 
of Baker, with whom I got acquainted after preach- 
ing, and who took some exceptions to some of my 
remarks because I had accused his brethren of quot- 
ing the commission as given by Matthew, " into the 
name" instead of " in the name." He seemed 
rather disposed to deny it, but I referred him to some 
of his own authors who I knew had done so, and 
with whom he was not acquainted, so we parted and 
I saw him no more until on Sunday afternoon, as we 
came back to town from our meeting. As we were 
on the road back to town, Sunday afternoon, we 
passed a meeting house, and seeing that there was a 
collection of people at the place, and that there was 
preaching going on, we stopped and went in ; and 
when we got into the house we found that the same 
man was there that we had met at McLeansboro, as 
we came over. In the course of his remarks, he 
spoke some on the subject of prayer. He said that 
he had often heard men pray prayers that he could 
not say amen to. He said that we should never pray 
the Lord to do for us what he had commanded us to 



—223— 

do. He told us that he had heard men pray to the 
Lord to visit the widow and the orphan and that he 
never said amen to that prayer, because the Lord 
had told us to visit the fatherless and the widow, and 
that we should doit, and not pray for him to. He said 
he had heard men, in their big meetings, pray for 
the Lord to come right down here, and be with us; 
but he said, "I always say, Lord, don't do it." He 
said the Lord was there already, if two or three had 
met in his name, and that we should not pray for 
Him to be there, if he is already there. He said 
that he had heard men pray for the Lord to send the 
gospel where it is not, but he said he never said 
amen to that prayer. The Lord had made it our duty 
to send the gospel, and if we wished the gospel 
sent where it is not, we should dive into our pockets 
and send it and not pray the Lord to do what he had 
told us to do. 

When he was through we went on, and on the next 
morning, before train time, I met him on the street 
and told him that I had the pleasure of hearing him 
awhile the evening before. He seemed glad, and 
was ready, of course, to hear what I had to say about 
his sermon. I told him that I only heard a portion 
of the preaching, but what I did hear was" interest- 
ing, but that if he was correct I had always been 
under a mistaken idea about prayer. I told him that 
I had never thought of the idea that we should not 
pray the Lord to do what He had told us to do, until 
I heard him the evening before. I had read the lan- 
guage of Jehovah to Adam, "In the sweat of thy 



224 

face shalt thou eat bread," and I had always thought 
from that that if a man wanted bread he must work 
for it, and that the Lord had made it our duty to work 
for our bread. I asked him if that was not his under- 
standing of it, and he said it was. I told him that I 
had always understood it that way, but the Savior 
taught his disciples to pray, "Give us this day, our 
daily bread," and I always thought that it was right 
to pray for bread, although it is our duty to work for 
it, and I never knew any better until the evening 
before. I said to him that I believed that it was our 
duty to "Abstain from every appearance of evil," 
because the apostle had given us an exhortation to 
that effect, and yet the Savior told his disciples to 
pray, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us" 
from evil." I never thought of such a prayer being 
wrong, until the evening before, but I suppose that 
I was mistaken, if he had taught us correctly on the 
subject. On the subject of preaching the gospel, it 
had never entered my mind, that, notwithstanding it 
is our duty to go and preach, and assist those who do 
go, yet the Lord had instructed his disciples to pray 
the Lord to send laborers, which we all believe 
means ministers, and I always thought that such a 
prayer was all right until I heard him the evening 
before. It was certainly good for me to be there, 
and I told him that I was glad I had met him — good 
bye. He asked to wait a moment. He said he 
wanted to read something to me. He drew out of 
his pocket a small copy of the New Testament, but 
as I had one of them, and could read it as well a s he 



—225— 

could, I told him that he had better go home and 
read to himself, and being in a little hurry, I left him 
to reflect on his wonderful sermon on prayers that he 
could not say amen to. 



CHAPTER XLVIII. 

I believe that I will give an account of my first 
visit to the Soldier Creek Association of Kentucky. 
I had met some of the brethren of that Association, 
a few weeks before, at the Muddy River Associa- 
tion, in Illinois, and had arranged with them to go. 
They instructed me to take the train to Cairo, 
on Thursday evening, and that I would connect 
with a boat at that place, going up the river to 
Paducah, and that some of the brethren would be 
on their way from Illinois, and that they would 
come down the river, and that we would all meet at 
Paducah on Friday morning, and go on from there 
together. But, just as the train was going into 
Cairo, I saw a boat starting up the river. That was 
the boat that I was to connect with, but it was gone, 
so I went to a hotel, and told the host that I wanted 
to go to Paducah on the first boat. He said there 
would be no regular boat going up the river until the 
next evening, at that time ; but he said that some 
transient boat might come at any time. He told 
me that he would be up all night, and that I could 
go to bed, and he would watch the river, and if he 
saw a boat coming he would call me. I went to 



226 

bed, and was not molested, and when I got up next 
morning, he told me that no boat had come yet. 
Of course, I had no idea when I could go, for there 
was no one who knew of a boat that was likely to 
go before evening. I remained there the whole 
day, until about four o'clock in the afternoon, when 
a boat came in sight, and when she landed I 
boarded her for Paducah. She had a heavy load, 
and she stopped at every landing on the way, and it 
was about nine o'clock that night when we got to 
Paducah. The brethren who were to meet me there 
on Friday morning were gone, for it was now Friday 
night, and the meeting was to begin on Saturdav 
morning. I did not know the way any farther, and 
I knew of no one to inquire of who did know. I 
went to the hotel, where I had to stay all night, and 
while there I looked over a railroad time table, and 
as I thought that I should take a train from there, I 
was solicitous about which road to take, and at what 
station I should get off. In looking over the time 
card, I saw Viola mentioned as a station. It sounded 
familiar to me, and I felt confident that it was on 
the road that I should take, whether it was the sta- 
tion for me to get off or not. I asked the host what 
time the train went out on that road in the morning, 
and he said it would go out at four o'clock in the 
morning, so I told him to call me for that train. 
At four, the next morning, I bought my ticket for 
Viola, and boarded the train, not knowing whether 
I would be in fifty miles of the Association when I 
reached Viola, or not. As the train moved out 



2 27 

the conductor came through for tickets, and I 
asked him what sort of a place Viola was. He 
asked me if I had never been there, and when 
I told him that I had not, he told me that I 
would never want to be again, and he passed on, 
and I wondered if I was right, and if Viola was the 
place for me to get off, even if this was the road. I 
noticed an elderly gentleman and his lady on the 
train, and I thought they might be going to the 
Association. I made up my mind that I would ask 
him if he knew anything about it before we parted. 
So, when the train stopped at Viola, a little after 
sun up, I noticed that they were getting off at the 
same place, and as the gentleman stepped off the 
car, I asked him if he knew anything of an Old 
Baptist Association that was to meet that day, any- 
where in the country. He said, yes, that there was 
to be one about nine miles from there. I asked him 
if this was the place for me to get off the train to 
get to it, and he said it was ; that I could not get 
any nearer the Association on this train. I asked 
him if he was certain that it was an Old Baptist 
meeting, and not a Missionary Baptist meeting. 
He seemed to be very confident that it was an 
Old Baptist Association. I told him to mention 
the names of some of the ministers, and then I could 
tell whether it was the one I wanted to go to or not. 
He said they had as preachers Parson Worrell, Har- 
rison, Dalton, Perkins, &c. I told him that would 
do, it was the meeting I was making for. I then 
inquired for a hotel, and they told me there was 



•228- 



none there. I then asked if there was a livery stable 
in the place, and they told me there was no livery 
stable. I thought it would be rather trying on a 
man to have to walk nine miles without anything 
to eat. 

While I was wondering what to do, and talking 
to the agent about it, there was an old colored man 
came up, and found out what I wanted, and he told 
me of a man about half a mile out who had plenty of 
horses, and he felt sure that I could get one. While 
I was talking with the colored man, the old gentle- 
man who had gotten off the train, came back to me, 
and said, "I will tell you what you had better do." 
I told him that was just what I wished to know. 
He told me that I had better come over to his house, 
and get my breakfast, and that he had a horse and 
buggy, and that he had nothing for them to do but to 
carry me over to the Association. Unreasonable as 
it may seem, I accepted his proposition, and went 
over to the house, where he had built a fire, for it 
was a cool October morning, and I made myself at 
home until breakfast. I was not very full of talk, 
for the delays I had suffered, and the disappoint- 
ment in not meeting my brethren at Paducah, on 
Friday morning, and being thrown out alone, had 
discouraged me so much, that I did not feel a great 
deal like talking. My friend, however, was a great 
talker, and seemed to realize the circumstances, and 
he did everything he could to make me feel at home. 
He proved to be what we call a Dryland Baptist, 
and was well acquainted with our brethren, in that 



-22< 



country. His wife was a Methodist lady, and she 
did her full share, by her christian kindness and 
hospitality to make me feel at home. After break- 
fast, we started to the Association, and the gentle- 
man had a great deal to say as we went along, and, 
among other things, he spoke freely of his interest in 
the Savior, and said that if he was only worthy, he 
would go to the church at the very next meeting, 
and that he would take up the cross at once ; but he 
said he was not fit, and for that reason he could not 
think of such a thing, When we got near the meet- 
ing grounds he told me that his horse and buggy 
were mine during the entire meeting, and that he 
would be the driver and the hostler. I thought that 
with all my disappointments in the trip, I had been 
very fortunate, in finding friends. I was a total 
stranger to him, and I could see no reason why he 
should take such an interest in me. 

There was an appointment made for me to preach 
that night at a Brother Baker's, in the neighborhood, 
and we got into the buggy and drove over to the 
place, and found a number of the brethren there, 
some of whom I knew. The Moderator of the Asso- 
ciation, Elder Hutchins, was present, and as I had 
never met with him before, I invited him to preach 
first, and the brethren present seemed to be agreed 
with me on that question, so he went forward and 
preached a real good sermon, and when he was 
through I followed, using for a text, " Go ye there- 
fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 



—230— 

Ghost." I was blest with about as much liberty as 
I ordinarily am, and I suppose I talked about an hour, 
and there were only a few present that had ever heard 
me, and this was my first effort to open my mouth 
to preach in that part of the state. After I was 
through and the people were dismissed, my hostler 
acted very strange toward me. He did not speak to 
me again that night, nor the next morning, until he 
got ready to start to meeting. He would pass around 
and gaze at me as though he did not understand me. 
I discovered that he seemed to act very strange, as I 
thought, but I did not let on that I noticed anything. 
I thought to myself that I had, perhaps, taken the 
last ride in his buggy. I felt eager to know, but 
would not ask. I finally overheard a brother ask him 
what he was going to charge that preacher for haul- 
ing him around. He answered that the bill was 
already paid now. That relieved my mind, and I 
did not think much more about it. When he got his 
horse and buggy ready to start to the meeting house, 
the next morning, he came to me and said that he 
was ready to go. This was the first time he had 
spoken to me since before services on the evening 
before. I went out with him and we got into the 
buggy and started, but he seemed to be in a deep 
study about something, and I said nothing to him, 
and he finally turned to me and said, " You did not 
fool me so very badly. I had heard of you before. 
Now," said he, "you seldom ever preach any better 
than you did last night, do you?" I told him that 
was a question that would be hard for me to answer 



— 2 3 I — 

for I was a very poor judge of my own preaching. 
He seemed to be very much overcome over my little 
effort, and from that on he seemed at home with me 
again, and I felt thankful to the good Lord for afford- 
ing me such a friend in time of so great need. This 
instance made me know that even in this country, 
with all the modern conveniences, a minister does 
not always have sunshine. Many times he will find 
himself surrounded" in such a manner, that the most 
successful weapon he can use to fight the battle with 
is prayer. 



CHAPTER XLIX. 

Our people have often been accused of being 
selfish and bigoted because we refuse to affiliate with 
others, as they say "in the good work." I have 
always denied the charge, and claim to be as liberal 
as any of my religious neighbors. I think it was in 
the year 1873, that I made my first visit to the state 
of Kentucky, during which I had meeting a time or 
two, in Madisonville, in the Methodist Church. The 
last night that I preached there, I met a Missionary 
Baptist preacher by the name of Lacy and he gave 
me an introduction to a Mr. Baker, who, he said 
was a missionary from Georgia, and who had an 
appointment also, at the same house on the same 
evening, and that he hardly knew just what to do, as 
my appointment was the oldest, I had the first right 
to the house. It seems that all denominations occu- 



—232-^- 

pied the one house in Madisonville, at that time. 
He said that Brothei Baker would love to have about 
fifteen minutes after I was through if I did not object. 
I told him certainly I would not object, but if it 
would suit him as well, he might go before and I 
would take what time was left, as I was somewhat 
tired anyway, having been traveling and preaching 
seveial days. He refused to go before, but insisted 
that I should preach first and he would follow me. 
The Methodist minister came in and I had an intro- 
duction to him. He told me that the house was 
mine for the evening and that he wanted me to feel 
at home and preach my sentiments freely and not 
feel intimidated nor trammeled in the least, for he 
had a desire to hear me preach my doctrine. So, as 
the appointment was made for me, and the people 
had gathered to hear me, I consented to go first and 
comply with the wish of the Methodist minister, as 
well as I could. I do not remember the text I used, 
but the idea of teaching was in the subject. I told 
them that the Lord, in the New Covenant, had 
said that He would write His laws in their hearts and 
put them in their minds, and that I and my brethren 
believed that the Lord did this work for the sinner, 
and that it was exclusively the Lord's work by His 
Spirit, and that He was not dependant on human help 
in the affair. I had taken that position, and had 
heard men undertake to establish the doctrine of 
means and instrumentalities in this text, by saying 
that penmanship was the figure used to illustrate the 
Lord's work in the writing of His laws in their hearts. 



— 2 33— 

I told them that for the sake of argument, we would 
admit the use of means, and that as was claimed, 
we would admit that the preacher was the pen, and 
that the Spirit was the ink, and that the parchment 
or paper upon which the writing is to be done was 
the sinner's heart. Now if I understand the matter, 
God is the penman. In the art of penmanship, who 
is the sovereign? Is it the pen, or the ink, or the 
paper, or the penman? Of course all must agree 
that it- is thepenman. In writing, then, the penman 
takes up the pen (preacher) when he pleases, does 
he not? Does the pen ever object, and complain 
that it is not getting enough pay, and that it will not 
write a word unless the pay can be made certain? 
The preacher does, and to make the figure fit in this 
case, we should see some independence on the part 
of the pen. But in the figure we do not; but the 
writer takes up his pen at his own pleasure, and ap- 
plies it to the ink as he wishes, and then when he 
comes to the paper, the (sinner's hearty) it does not 
resist, and begin to oppose the work of the writer, 
saying to him, "You cannot write on me." If we 
were to see such things as that in nature, we would 
be surprised. But we are told that in many instan- 
ces, the sinner will not allow the Lord to write in 
his heart. I argued that the penman took up his 
pen when he pleased, and dipped it into the ink 
when he pleased, and then he wrote on the paper 
when he pleased, and that he wrote just what he 
wanted to, and made just such impressions as he saw 
fit, and that was precisely the way the Lord wrote 



—2 34— 

his laws in the heart of the sinner. He wrote when, 
where and as he pleased. The Savior said, "For 
as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth 
them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." 
John v, 21. 

I told them that I believed and preached the sov- 
ereignty of God, that I professed liberality, and that 
I would live religiously and doctrinally with any man 
that would just accept one text that I would quote and 
let all he preaches and practices be agreed with the 
naked reading of the text, without any comment. I 
would unite with any man on that text. Isa. lv. 10, 
ii. "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow 
from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth 
the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it 
may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater: 
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my 
mouth : it shall not return unto me void, but it shall 
accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper 
in the thing whereto I sent it." Just admit the truth 
of this text, without comment, and let all you believe 
and practice agree with that text, and we are together. 
I told them that we were often called "anti-mission" 
by people of other religious orders, because we stood 
aloof from everything of that sort, and that on that 
account we were often called selfish. I told them 
that I would join them on their own terms if they 
would have me. On their own terms, now they 
could have me, if they would. I had often made 
this offer to the Missionaries and they rejected me 
every time. I did not think it was fair for them to 



— 2 35— 

call me selfish if they would not have me in their 
societies, on their own platform; but they do. I told 
them that I would join them now, on their terms, 
and would now make the proposition. But, I told 
them that I wanted us all to understand those terms 
and that I would test the matter by asking a few 
questions. I would agree that if any man could 
convert a sinner that I could, and I believed that if 
I could I ought to, for I believed that I ought to do 
all the good that I could for myself, and for my fel- 
low man and for the glory of God. Now, as it will 
be our business to convert sinners, I want to know 
first what you Missionaries think of the sinner prior 
to his conversion. As we have in our congregation 
a Methodist, two Missionary Baptist and one or two 
Campbellite preachers, this will certainly be a good 
time for me to make my application. Then I ask, 
is the sinner's heart right with God prior to his con- 
version ? They all agreed that it is not. On that 
point, then, there was no difference between them 
and me, for we were agreed as to the condition of 
the sinner's heart. I ask again, will the sinner's 
works be accepted of God unless his heart is right? 
They all agreed that they would not. To this point 
then we were altogether agreed. Now, I have only 
one more question to ask, and a Scriptural answer to 
the question is all that is wanted, and I am ready to 
join to-night. I told them that I did not mean any 
foolishness about it, for I was in earnest. Then I 
ask, what is the first thing for us to do to the sinner? 
Tell me in the language of the Bible, and I will go 



— 236— 

immediately to work. Tell me! Tell me!! What 
will we do to that sinner first in order to convert him.? 
It will not do to tell the sinner to do something, for 
we all agree that his heart is not right with God, and 
that his works will not be accepted of God, unless 
his heart is right. If all this be true, his heart must, 
of necessity, be changed before the sinner works. 
Then if it is our business to do anything to convert 
him, we must do that something before he works 
any. After his heart is changed it will be too late 
for us to get our work in, for he will then be con- 
verted, Then whatever we do we must do before 
he is converted. In what book, chapter and verse 
will I find an answer to that question? I want no 
man's opinion, I ask for one text of Scripture, and 
that I must have, and you Missionaries must give it, 
or else I can not afford to join you. While I knock 
at your door for admission on your own terms, and 
you shut your doors against me, you should never 
call me illiberal and selfish. If your course is Scrip- 
tural, just give me one text, and if you do not, I 
shall take it for granted that I and my brethren have 
never done you any injustice by calling your new 
practices, with all their train of means and methods, 
and all your so-called benevolence, anti-scriptural. 
That is just what it is, and the Missionary people in 
this country would not be called on to confront such 
appeals as this if they had the Bible with them. 
They did not answer the question, and they never 
will. No man has ever said that it was not a fair 
question, that I have ever heard. I claim that it is 



— 3 37— 

pertinent, and that they are under obligations to 
answer it, but they will never do it. When I was 
through, Mr. Baker arose, and began a begging lec- 
ture for missions, without referring to me, or any- 
thing that I had said. He seemed to want to think, 
and to want all others to think that I was not there 
and had not been there. But they knew I was there, 
and when he began to draw almost to the point of 
lifting a collection for missionary purposes, the peo- 
ple arose and left the house without giving him time 
to pass the hat. There was a little too much con- 
tempt manifested on his part toward me, and what I 
had said, for thinking people not to notice it. I was 
told that he tried it again. In fact he made the 
announcement for another time, the evening I was 
there, but financially, it was a failure, so I was told. 
I felt, after it was all over, that if those preachers 
could have answered my questions they would have 
done so. I am satisfied the practice of those people 
in those things is unscriptural. I am glad I am not 
in those unscriptural practices. But because I am 
not, I have had many frowns and epithets cast at me. 
Wry faces and ugly frowns have often met me 
because I could not sanction everything that the peo- 
ple attached the name of my Savior to, but it is all 
right. I feel that even among the most pious and 
influential religionists, when Jesus was here they 
despised Him and His doctrine. It is not likely that 
His doctrine should be any more popular now than it 
was then. If He refused to submit to the notions of 
others simply because they were popular, and was 



-238- 

willing to bear the jeers and frowns of a respectable 
religious world, and bear it all for the good of His 
people, I, who am one of the beneficiaries of His 
grace, I hope, should be willing to follow His example. 



CHAPTER L. 

During the time of my ministry, I have had the 
care of churches almost all the time. I have been 
told many times by the brethren that they did not 
think I was suitable for a pastor, but that I should 
be foot-loose to go about among the churches, gen- 
erally, and that others should remain at home and 
attend the churches. When I was younger, I 
thought that perhaps that might be the case, but I 
noticed, finally, that if a brother wanted me to visit 
his church once in a while, and I was so confined to 
churches that I could not, he was more apt to tell 
me that I ought not to be a pastor than if I was the 
pastor of his church. I have feared, many times, 
that I was not a good pastor, but I have enjoyed the 
care of churches as much as any work I have ever done 
as a minister. I think I have had as clear evidence 
of my call to preach, when laboring as a pastor, as 
when engaged in any sort of work in the ministry. 
It is true that I have traveled over a great deal of 
country and tried to preach, but whether it has been 
as profitable to the cause, as if I had spent my time 
differently, is a question that I have doubted. I 
have thought that perhaps, if I had gone to a church, 



— 2 39— 

and had given it my full time, instead of trying to 
visit many churches, I might have done more good. 
I have, as a rule, I think, been more successful in 
my labors when I have spent more time at one 
church. Sometimes it is necessary to stay several 
days in one place, if the people are to be taught in 
the fundamental doctrine and practice of the church, 
for no man can teach much in one or two discourses ; 
and if the church needs the labors of a man to gather 
the little children of God, into the fold, he should 
not be obliged to leave his work just at a time that 
he is badly needed. While I am writing I can call 
to mind a number of churches that I have visited 
with the most satisfactory results. I have also at- 
tended churches as pastor, and have had the very 
best evidence of divine approbation. Perhaps about 
one dozen churches embrace all that I have ever 
served as pastor, long enough to do any good. I 
have spent the best part of my life, so far, in White 
County, Illinois, and Posey County, Indiana, as 
pastor of churches. I have, in all my labors, bap- 
tized about four hundred people, and married, per- 
haps, one hundred and twenty-five couples, and 
preached at least two hundred and fifty funerals. I 
have not kept an accurate account, but do not think 
these numbers are exaggerated. I have been re- 
quested to baptize some few that I could not, for 
they were away from my home, and I could not go 
on account of other engagements. I have also been 
called on many times to marry people ; also to 
preach funerals, when I could not go. I have taken 



— 240 — 

the care of churches as pastor a few times, simply 
because they could get no one else, and I have taken 
them when everything looked very gloomy, so far as 
the prospects of the churches were concerned, and I 
have been surprised at the good results of my little 
efforts to labor for them. I have tried to show as 
little partiality between members of the church in 
case of trouble among them, as I could, but I have 
not always been able to escape the accusation of 
partiality. I have sometimes felt partial, and I have 
sometimes been accused of. it when I had no pref- 
erence ; but I would advise all pastors to show no 
partiality in case of difference between two mem- 
bers, if it is possible to avoid it. 

On account of some local unpleasantness among 
some of the churches of Salem Association, the one 
I now live in, which affected the surrounding Asso- 
ciations to some extent, not in doctrine, nor practice, 
but I may say in personal feelings, a number of the 
corresponding Associations dropped correspondence 
with Salem, a few years ago, and some others with- 
drew correspondence from each other. The Bethel 
Association of Illinois, Highland, of Kentucky, 
Skillet Fork, of Illinois, and Blue River and Little 
Zion, of Indiana, all severed correspondence with 
Salem. The only reason assigned by Bethel for 
discontinuing the correspondence, was that it was 
not kept up profitably, and not that any unpleasant 
feeling existed between them. During those un- 
pleasant times many hard things were said, and 
brethren of different Associations would denounce 



— 241 — 

each other as disorderly, or unsound. These things, 
of course, are to be expected under circumstances of 
this kind. This was the dreadful state of affairs 
when I moved into this Association. All the original 
correspondence with Salem had been dropped, ex- 
cept Muddy River and Little Wabash Associations, 
in Illinois. In the meantime correspondence with 
White River and Danville Associations, in Indiana, 
had been taken up. But I feel happy to say, that 
amid all the jargon and severing of correspondence, 
there were no serious troubles in the Associations that 
amounted to much of a rent in any one of them. 
Each Association seemed to be at peace within itself. 
Finally, a better feeling began to grow among the 
ministry, the tide seemed to turn its course, the old 
breaches began to close up, correspondence began to 
be renewed, and one gap after another was closed, 
until all correspondence was restored except that of 
Highland, Kentucky. 

Salem Association to-day corresponds with nine 
Associations, altogether numbering about six thous- 
and five hundred members, including her own mem- 
bership. 

I will further state that she never divided on mis- 
sionism, two-seedism, means, instrumentalities, eter- 
nal vital union, nor any other ism, and that there is not 
a Missionary Baptist Church in her bounds ; neither 
are there any factions of two or three different sorts 
of Old Baptists. I do not know whether I have 
been profitable or not as a pastor, but I am happy 
to know that I have never sought to be the leader of 



— 242 — 

a party, and I also know that under my ministry no 
church has ever divided into factions, each one claim- 
ing to be the church. I have heard of many ites, 
but I have never had any desire to hear of Potterites, 
for I have never thought such a thing would be any 
credit to me. I hope that if I have done no good 
for the cause, I have done no harm. 



. CHAPTER LI. 

When I was a very young man in the ministry, I 
was forced into one or two little engagements called 
debates. The first one of the sort was when I had 
only been exercising in public about two years. I 
was living in the vicinity of my nativity, and teach- 
ing a winter school, and could not get very far from 
home to meetings, and there was a meeting house 
about four miles from where I lived, that was owned 
by the Campbellites, but was built with the under- 
standing that all denominations might preach in it 
when they did not want it. I made an appointment 
or two at this place and filled them and on one occa- 
sion when I got there, I found their pastor was there, 
who lived several miles away. I thought that per- 
haps he had an appointment, and that I had better 
find out before I went too far, as it was his house, 
so I asked one of his brethren if he had an appoint- 
ment, and I was told that he would not preach until 
in the afternoon, at two o'clock, and for me to make 
free and fill my appointment. 



— 2 43— 

From that I went into the pulpit, and introduced 
my services, and began my little talk, when I noticed 
the preacher taking notes after me. His name was 
Sumner, and he had been preaching twenty years or 
more, and was thought to be very able. When he 
began to note I felt like giving him the best I could 
do, for this was the first time that any man had ever 
taken notes after me. When I was through I 
announced his appointment and dismissed, and as I 
came out of the stand he met me with a Bible in his 
hand, and said that I had quoted a text that was not 
in the Bible. I thought perhaps I had, for I lacked 
a great deal of being perfect in quoting Scripture. 
But I asked him what it was, and he said that I had 
quoted a text that "All that dwell on the face of the 
earth shall worship him, whose names are not writ- 
ten in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the 
foundation of the world." Rev, xiii, 8. He said 
that text was not in the Bible. As soon as he told 
me what text he had allusion to, I knew he was mis- 
taken. He was very positive, and turned the lids of 
the Bible from one side to the other, saying that it 
was not between those lids. I told him that I knew 
it was there, and that I thought I could soon find it 
for him. He told me to find it then by two o'clock, 
and show it to him. I told him I could soon find it, 
and that I would not be there at two o'clock. He 
said I must, for he intended to reply to me at his 
meeting. I told him to reply to his satisfaction, but 
I should not be present. I had not the least idea of 
having any controversy with him, for I was really 



—244— 

afraid of him. Besides I did not think it would be 
prudent for me to undertake such a thing, for I was 
young and inexperienced and he was old and experi- 
enced. As I would not agree to stay, the crowd 
seemed to hang around, as if they understood 
it, and finally one man made the suggestion that he 
preach now, and not go away until afterwards. He 
said that he would rather do without his dinner that' 
much longer than to go home and back through the 
bad weather. This suggestion was agreed to, and 
the people were called in. By this time I had found 
the disputed text. I asked him if he could read, and 
he seemed almost indignant at that question, and 
said he could. I told him to read that verse, point- 
ing it out to him, and then I turned the lids of the 
Bible as he had done, and told him that it looked to 
me like it was precisely between the lids. He said 
he did not know, before, that there was such a text 
as that. I suggested to him that perhaps he had 
better read his Bible before he replied to me. I told 
him I thought as he was going to reply he ought to 
tell what the text meant. He invited me into the 
stand with him, and I went up, and after he looked 
over his books a while, he turned to me and said that 
he was going to read the strongest Baptist chapter in 
the Bible. I told him I wished he would so I would 
know which one it was. He said he wished that all 
Baptist preachers could say that. He then arose and 
read I Pet. ii. That was an easy thing to do, for he 
did not offer a single comment on it. After he 
commenced his review of my discourse, only a few 



—245— 

minutes, I concluded to reply. So, I took notes, 
and at the close of his harangue, I announced that I 
would reply at four o'clock that afternoon. 

As I went away with some of my friends, they 
told me that they thought the whole thing was a put- 
up job, and that his brethren had notified him of my 
meeting, and requested him to be there. I answered 
him the best I could, and I felt satisfied with my 
effort, for it was no trouble to refute his arguments 
with the Bible. At the close of my remarks, I told 
him what I had heard, that it was all a preconceived 
arrangement, and that he was prepared for it, and 
had come down on purpose to whip me out of that 
day, and now, if he thought he had whipped me, 
not to boast about it, for I was the least Old Baptist 
preacher out, and if he could not whip me, what 
would he do in case one of our ordinary men, and 
especially, if one of our "big guns" should come 
along? Not being satisfied, he insisted that we 
debate during the following week, at night, and I 
finally consented to meet him on Thursday night. 
So, accordingly we met, and continued until Satur- 
day night. This was my introduction to debates. I 
have had, now, thirty public discussions, and I doubt 
the propriety of such things except under very rare 
circumstances. If my brethren would let me alone, 
I would seldom ever accept any man's challenge for 
a debate. I think, many times that debates are 
gotten up more on the principle of a prize fight, or 
something of that sort, than a desire to know the 
truth of God's word. If a man comes along that we 



— 246 — 

think is able, and seems to be the premium preacher 
we have heard for some time, the brethren frequent- 
ly suggest the idea of hearing him in a debate, and 
from that on, if our brethren do not challenge, they 
provoke a challenge from the other side, which is no 
better, but more cowardly. If we wish to have a 
debate with others, why not walk up like men and 
make the challenge ? To challenge is one thing nec- 
essary to debates, and if we want them, let us ask 
for them. 

I have been called on many times to debate, but 
have managed to keep out of every one that I possi- 
bly could. The brethren have misjudged me, in 
thinking that I was never better pleased than when I 
was engaged in a debate. I will debate when my 
brethren think, in their sober judgment that the cause 
of our people needs defending. That is the only way. 



—247— 
CHAPTER LII. 

Some years ago I visited Union City, Tennes- 
see, where I held a meeting about a week, and had 
a pleasant time, baptizing one or two. After I 
closed my meeting, I took the train for home, about 
six o'clock in the evening, and ran up to Columbus, 
Kentucky, on the Mobile and Ohio Railroad, and 
from there across the Mississippi river, over to Char- 
leston, Missouri. I had to change cars at ten o'clock, 
and had to wait until two, making a four hours' lay- 
over. I waited at the depot, as I was anxious to get 
home on the first train, and did not wish to wait un- 
til the next day for another train. When I landed 
off the train at Charleston, I found that there was a 
family getting off the same train, who were emigrat- 
ing from some place in Tennessee, to Arkansas. 
The family consisted of a man and his wife and a 
large family of children. The children were of all 
sizes and ages it seemed from an infant in the moth- 
er's arms, to girls about grown. The first attrac- 
tions this family of movers had for me, were the 
plaintive cries of one of the little boys, who, I sup- 
pose had been asleep in the car, and on being waked 
up and brought out into the cold, was very much 
displeased, and the first I heard from him was, "I 
want to go home." I noticed that the good mother 
had a child in her arms, and seemed to be very much 
cast down. The father was a large robust looking 
man, and seemed to be very calm and quiet, taking 
matters patiently, and in good spirits. I heard them 



—248— 

say that the train they wanted would not go until 
three o'clock the next evening. A hotel man step- 
ped up to the lady and asked her if she wished a 
hotel. She said she did not, for they had no money 
to go to a hotel ; that the railroad agents had misrep- 
resented matters to them about the connections, and 
they had spent so much time laying over, that they 
had almost gone through with what money they had. 
She said she was afraid they would suffer for some- 
thing to eat before they got there, and that they had 
shipped all their clothing and bedding, so they could 
not get to them, and they would simply have to do 
the best they could without them. I found out also, 
that the poor woman had the sick headache until she 
was very miserable, but her babe would not allow 
anyone to touch it but her. The weather was cool, 
it being in the month of January, and the waiting 
room was not very comfortable, and none of the 
family had any extra wraps, only the clothing they 
had on. The man brought in a load of wood and 
made a good warm fire, and in a short time the 
children took their shawls and what wraps they had, 
and spread them on the cold floor, and laid down on 
them and went to sleep. The poor woman looked 
as if she could hardly hold her head up, but she had 
to sit up and hold her child, for it was cross, and 
would not allow anyone else to touch it. I had 
nothing to do but to sit by and see and hear, and I 
was, indeed, sorry for the poor woman. 

About twelve o'clock the man laid down, and 
seemed soon to forget that he was moving to Arkan- 



—249— 

sas, for he very soon began to snore, and I suppose 
he was sound asleep. Sometime after he went to 
sleep the child went to sleep, and the poor woman 
seemed to think that if he would get up and hold it, 
she might get a little rest, and she really looked like 
she needed it. So she undertook to wake her hus- 
band, whom she called 'Jim," but she failed. She 
spoke in a low tone to him, I suppose, for fear she 
would wake the child, and she would say, "Jim, 
Jim," and he would give a grunt, or a sort of groan, 
and she would say, "Get up and hold the baby, and 
let me sleep a while." After several efforts of this 
kind, and as many failures to get him up, I went 
to him, and put my hand on his shoulder. I said, 
"Jim! Jim!! Jim!!!" He answered me, and I 
told him to get up and hold the baby, and let his 
wife rest a while. He got up and took the child, 
and his wife laid down, and neither of them said a 
word to me, and I was glad he did not, for it was a 
wonder to me what he might have said. However, 
I suppose he thought it was all right, but neither he 
nor his wife said "I thank you," nor anything else. 
It was all right with me, and I am confident that I 
did her a favor, even if it was no accommodation to 
him. At two o'clock in the morning my train came, 
going to Cairo, and when I boarded it, I took a seat 
near the stove, for the weather was cool. I noticed 
a man on the seat just behind me, who from his 
dress, and outfit, and general appearance, I thought 
might be an Old Baptist minister. I did not know 
him, but I finally asked him where he got on the 



2^0 — 

train, and he told me the name of the station down 
in Arkansas somewhere, and that he was going to 
Mayfield, Kentucky to see his father. During the 
conversation he found out who I was, and he told 
me that he had heard of me, and that his father was 
a member of the Primitive Baptist Church. So I 
found out that I had missed my guess. He said 
he did not belong to the church, but he was a Bap- 
tist in belief. 

When we reached the Mississippi river, at Bird's 
Point, the passengers left the car and went into a 
transfer boat, to get over to Cairo. It was about 
three o'clock in the morning, and the moon was 
shining, and I was looking around to learn all I could, 
and as I passed the stove, I noticed my man in con- 
versation with a stranger, and I heard him say, " That 
is a preacher." The other man asked him who it was, 
and he told him that it was Potter. On hearing this 
the gentleman arose and followed me up, and reached 
out to me his hand, and said " How-d'ye Lem ?" I 
told him I would not do it. I said to him, "I do not 
know you." He told me that I used to know him when 
I was a little boy. He asked me if I did not remem- 
ber a man that used to be at my father's when I was 
a boy, by the name of Benjamin Dame. I said, 
"Surely this is not Ben Dame!" He said it was, 
and I told him I could hardly believe it. But I told 
him that if I could hear him laugh, I thought I could 
tell then if it was Ben. At this he began to laugh 
and I said, "Yes, it is Ben, give me your hand." 
I remembered that Ben Dame was a great laugher. 



-25 1- 

I think it had been thirty years or more, since he 
used to be at father's, when I was but a boy. He 
had been down in Texas, and was on his return to 
his home, in Kentucky. After landing in Cairo I 
boarded another train, about five o'clock, and arrived 
at my home in Grayville, about ten that morning, 
having been in four states, and crossed the Missis- 
sippi river twice, since six o'clock the evening before, 
and being up all night without sleep, and exposed 
to the weather, and to all other dangers incident to 
such a trip, and making the acquaintances that I had 
made. 

CHAPTER LIII. 

Our Savior said, "Woe unto the world because 
of offenses." It has been my observation during 
my little career, that offenses and disturbances come, 
and that there is no knowing just when or how they 
will come. They get into the family, and into 
society, and especially do they get into the church. 
I have seen churches whose members seemed to be 
of one mind and one heart, and it Seemed that, if 
any minister ought to be happy with his flock, that 
certainly he would be with a membership all in peace 
and love, and full of zeal for the cause of religion. 
What a pity that the great enemy of souls should 
ever be able to mar the peace and fellowship of so 
happy a community as this! Yet it is often done, 
and brethren and sisters who loved one another, be- 
come the most bitter enemies, and then, instead of 



—252— 

trying to make each other happy, they take special 
pains to provoke and torment each other. I have 
seen a few cases in my life, where a member of the 
church seemed to think so much of his standing in 
the church, that he thought that he was in no danger 
of being disciplined by the church. I have noticed 
that when a man comes to such a conclusion as that 
about himself, as a rule, the more you indulge him 
the more trouble he will give you. If all church 
members were humble, and thought that they were 
hardly worthy to be in the church, and could always 
feel that way, it would not be such a hard matter to 
get them to do right. It is not to be expected that 
a man can live among the churches for thirty 
years, as a minister, and see no unpleasantness 
among his members. I believe that I will give an 
account of a little trouble that our church got into, 
at Grayville, Illinois, while I lived there. One time 
we were holding a meeting at that place, and the 
church was in a lively state, and there was, occa- 
sionally, one to join the church. There was an old 
sister, living out of town, about a mile, who for con- 
venience I will call Aunt Polly. She was sick, and 
on that occasion she could not attend the meetings. 
One night a young lady, who for convenience, I will 
call Eliza, joined the church. After our meeting 
was dismissed that night, my wife and I w T ent out to 
sit up with Aunt Polly, and as soon as we got in she 
began to inquire about the meeting, and I sat back 
and let my wife do the talking, and as we had re- 
ceived two or three members that night, it was an 



— 2 53— 

easy matter for her to tell Aunt Polly all about it. 
But when she told her that Eliza had joined, Aunt 
Polly seemed to get worse, and to feel very badly 
very suddenly. She soon let us know that she had 
no use for Eliza, and she said that there was hard- 
ness between them, and that during their unpleasant- 
ness, Eliza had cursed the Old Baptist Church to 
Aunt Polly, and told her that she intended to join it 
some day just to spite her. I saw that we were in 
trouble, and.I began to study what would be the easiest 
way to get out of it. Aunt Polly said she would 
not live in the church with her, for she believed that 
Eliza had joined the church to spite her, and that if 
she had been there she would not have tried to join 
the church. My plan, at first, was to consider Aunt 
Polly's objection to her reception the same as if she 
had been at the meeting and voted against receiving 
her. The rules of the church required us to receive 
members only by unanimous vote. As Aunt Polly 
was sick, and not able to be there, I thought it would 
be no more than fair to count her vote, and consider 
Eliza not received. But when I mentioned the 
matter to some of the brethren, I found that they 
were not willing that the matter should end that way." 
They claimed, some of them, that Eliza had as much 
right in the church as any one else, and that Aunt 
Polly ought not to say that she would not live in the 
church with her. Others, again, plead that Aunt 
Polly had been a life-long member, and that Eliza 
should have gone to see her before she joined the 
church, and tried to adjust matters with her as she 



—254— 

knew that there was not the right sort of feelings 
between them, and that the church, to say the least 
of it, ought to consider Aunt Polly's objection. In 
all this I had my preference ; but I managed to keep 
it to myself. The church finally sent a committee 
of five sisters, to see the two, and try to get them to 
be reconciled to each other. The committee were 
divided, some of them in favor of Aunt Polly and 
some of them in sympathy with Eliza ; and their 
prejudices were so high that they could not keep 
them hidden when they got there, so they failed to 
get the trouble settled. When they made their report 
to the church that it was not settled, it was an easy 
matter to see that the church was almost equally 
divided. Matters began to look very gloomy for 
that church at that time. If the church had decided 
in favor of Aunt Polly, and against Eliza, about half 
of the members would have left the church ; and if they 
had decided in favor of Eliza and against Aunt Polly 
the result would have been about the same with the 
other half. It seemed that every wheel was clogged, 
and we could not even dismiss without doing some- 
thing and it was impossible for us to do anything. The 
matter was before the church, and had to be disposed 
of sOme way before we could dismiss. Finally there 
was a motion made to appoint another committee, 
and let them try again to get them to be reconciled. 
The only salvation for the church was for them to be 
reconciled. I was afraid that it could not be done, 
and it did seem that if it was not done, the church 
would divide. We, however, appointed the com- 



~ 2 55- 

mittee, requesting them to report at the next meet- 
ing. I being the Moderator of the church, they put 
it on me to appoint the committee, which I did, but 
with no hopes of them effecting a reconciliation. 
Feeling a great desire for peace to be restored to the 
church, and having no hope that this committee could 
possibly do any good on account of their biased feel- 
ings, some for one, and some for the other, I con- 
cluded to make an effort to get them together and 
see if I could get them to settle. I had told no one 
how I stood, and neither of them knew which side I 
was on. I tried to ask the Lord to bless my efforts 
in the matter, for I saw no hope for the church, 
unless it could be settled. After meeting was dis- 
missed, I asked Aunt Polly if she would be willing 
to meet Eliza in my presence, and have no one else 
present, and try to settle the matter with her, pro- 
vided she was willing. She said she would, so I 
told her I would see Eliza, and then I would let her 
know. I went to Eliza and asked her if she would 
be willing to meet Aunt Polly in my presence, and 
have no one else present, and try to settle it with her, 
if she was willing. She said she would. So I told 
Aunt Polly to come to my house on the next Mon- 
day morning, and I would be at home, and have 
Eliza there. On Monday morning she rode up, and 
I helped her off her horse, and conducted her into 
the house, and told her that I would go and bring 
Eliza. Before I started I told Aunt Polly that I 
wanted her to talk kindly to Eliza, for, said I, " Eliza 
is young, and you are old, and if you talk ugly to her 



— 256— 

I will have to stop you." She said she would treat 
her kindly, and so I went over after Eliza, which was 
only a short distance in town. As we came back 
together, I said to her, "Now, Eliza, you must be 
kind to Aunt Polly, for you are young and strong, 
and she is old and afflicted and peevish, and if you 
talk unkind to her I shall have to tell you to stop." 
She said she would not talk rough to her, so when 
we got there, and my wife had left the room, I told 
them to begin, and for Aunt Polly to begin first, and 
tell Eliza what she had against her, and what it would 
take to satisfy her, and then for Eliza to do the same. 
Aunt Polly turned to her and said, "Eliza, I want 
to hear you tell your experience." Eliza told her 
experience to the old sister, and when she was through 
Aunt Polly asked her a few questions, and then she 
said, " Now, Eliza, if I have ever done you any harm 
in the world, I want you to forgive me." Eliza 
said, "You never did me any harm in the world, 
and I want you to forgive me all the wrongs I have 
ever done you." Aunt Polly said, "You have 
never done me any wrong, and I have done wrong, 
and I ask your forgiveness." Thus, the matter was 
settled, and the dark cloud that brooded over the 
church withdrew, and light sprung up, and the sun 
shone brightly, and I felt like praising the Lord for 
His mercy. 

I have been confident ever since, that if when we 
become irreconciled to our brethren, we would 
tell our experiences to one another, instead of trying 



—257— 

to magnify one another's faults, difficulties would be 
more easily settled. 

I feel confident that if Aunt Polly had been pres- 
ent when Eliza joined the church, that she would 
have been willing to receive her. 



CHAPTER LIV. 

There have been so many remarks made about the 
Old Baptists, and so many people have heard so 
many things about them, that it is hard to tell what 
has, or has not been said about them. I remember 
that on one occasion, I was attending an Association 
in Perry County, Illinois, at old Nine Mile Church, 
not far from the City of DuQuoin, and there was 
living in the city a Brother Allen, who made a pub- 
lic invitation for company, as is common with our 
people on such occasions. He also arranged for 
preaching in town, and on Saturday afternoon quite 
a number of the brethren and sisters went to his 
house. He was keeping a hotel, and we spent most 
of the afternoon at his hotel. During the afternoon 
Sister Allen met one of her near neighbors, who in- 
quired of her why so many people were at their 
hotel. Sister Allen told her that these were her 
brethren and sisters who had come home with them 
from the Association. That we were to preach in 
the city to-night, and that they had come to spend 
the afternoon and night with them. The lady seemed 
surprised beyond measure. She said, "Those are 



— 2 5 8 — 

not all Old Baptists, are they?" Sister Allen told 
her they were, and she exclaimed, " Well! Well! ! 
Well!!! Those are all Old Baptists, are they? 
And some of them right well dressed!" It seems 
that this poor batch of ignorance was under the im- 
pression that if the Old Baptists wore any clothes at 
all, they must be coarse, ragged and dirty. 

I was traveling one time, going up the railroad 
towards Mount Carmel, from Grayville, and as the 
train was pulling out from Keensburg, I noticed a 
man whom I knew to be a minister, coming down 
the aisle looking for a seat, and as he was about to 
pass me, I gave him a touch and invited him to a 
seat. I had held a debate with him, and as he took 
his seat, he said, "I wonder where you are going." 
I told him that I was going up the creek a little ways. 
He said, "You are going to skin some Campbellite, 
I expect." He was a preacher of that order. I told 
him that I was, if any of them got in my way, that I 
was just the one that could do it, and he knew it. 
After jesting in that manner for awhile, he said to me, 
" Do the Hard Shells pay you pretty well for preach- 
ing?" He spoke out rather loud, for he wanted 
the people in the car to hear it, for he thought it 
would be a little sport to ask me such a question, 
and give the people an opportunity to laugh at my 
expense. I told him that they paid me all they 
promised, that they were up now, and did not owe 
me a cent. I asked him how his brethren were on 
that question, and he began to clear up his throat, 
when I told him to sing it out, I did, and it was as 



_ 259- 

fair for him to answer it as it was for me. . He told 
me that they were behind with him some. I told 
him that a people who would not pay their debts I 
would not preach to, if I were in his place. I thought 
that they certainly had not been converted right, or 
they would pay up as they had promised. 

In this country, the most of our churches are in the 
country, and the customs and forms of country peo- 
ple are different from those of the city. I suppose, 
that is one reason that our people are so often referred 
to as they are, and so many remarks made about 
them. My judgment is, however, that they are 
about as capable of attending to their own affairs as 
others. Before I close this chapter, I will relate one 
or two instances more. I filled an appointment at 
Stonefort, Illinois, many years ago, and there was a 
young Missionary Baptist preacher present, who 
invited me home with him to dinner. Elder Richard 
Fulkerson was with me, and we accepted the invita- 
tion, and went with him. He appeared to be very 
zealous, and while we were there he asked us a great 
many questions. He seemed, however, to put the 
most of them to me. He was very much inter- 
ested on the subject of the support of the ministry ; 
and while conversing on that subject he asked me 
if I believed in a call to the work of the ministry, 
and when I told him I did, he wanted to know if the 
Lord called a man to preach if it was his duty to 
plow. I told him that I thought it was his duty to 
preach ; but if he did not preach all the time, I did 
not think it would hurt him to plow. 



— 260— 

After talking for some time, on the subject of pay- 
ing the minister a stipulated salary, I finally said 
that the Bible told every man just how much to pay 
the preacher, to the fraction of a cent, and that was 
what he had purposed in his heart, according as the 
Lord had prospered him. He said that was all right, 
but could not the man purpose at the beginning of 
the year, just as well as at the end of the year, then 
the minister would know just what to depend on. I 
told him that might all be true, but suppose I pur- 
pose in my heart to give you five dollars, and you 
will not preach unless I give you ten. I am under 
no obligation to give more, for the Bible has settled 
that question. I told him that while he claimed the 
right to set his price, he would not feel under obli- 
gations to take five dollars, so, it was very easy to 
see that his system and the Bible would conflict. I 
still view matters that way. Whenever a man invents 
a system of either doctrine or practice that will not 
work in harmony with the Bible, there could be no 
better evidence that his system is wrong. I have 
always been opposed to men hiring themselves out 
to preach the gospel. 

In the year 1878, I held a debate in Benton, Illi- 
nois, with Elder Throgmorton, and in his first speech 
on the support of the ministry, he said that the 
"Hard Shells" treated their ministers as beggars. 
In my reply, I told him that we would test that mat- 
ter now. I then called on Elder Fulkerson, one of 
our ministers, who was well known all over that 
country, and who had labored faithfully in the min- 



26l 

istry for many years, and I said " Brother Fulkerson, 
did you ever ask any one for money, or anything else 
for preaching?" He said, " I never did in my life." 
I then called on Elder Elijah Webb, who had lived in 
the county all his life, and was well known to all the 
people of that country. He had been preaching for 
many years. I said, " Brother Webb, did you ever 
ask anybody for money or anything else for preach 
ing?" He said, "Never." Well, said I, " Here 
is Elder Vance, a Missionary Baptist minister, and 
he told me this morning that he commenced preach- 
ing when he was a boy. Brother Vance has been 
familiarly known in this country for many years. 
Brother Vance, did you ever ask anybody for money 
for preaching?" He said, "Yes sir." I then ap- 
pealed to Mr. Throgmorton, and he said he had 
asked for money for preaching, I told him that I had 
never done such a thing. Now, said I, "Who is 
the beggar?" 

I still believe that too many preachers beg too 
much and preach the gospel too little. 



— 262 — 
CHAPTER LV. 

When I first joined the church and began to 
preach, there was a great deal said about the Two 
Seed doctrine, and the most of our preachers of 
southern Illinois believed it. It was nothing uncom- 
mon to hear a minister speak out in favor of that 
doctrine in his sermons. It seemed that in our im- 
mediate connection, it had the ascendency. Some 
of the Associations in our correspondence passed 
resolutions that the belief or disbelief of that doc- 
trine should not be a bar to fellowship. For several 
years after I commenced preaching, I rather favored 
it, enough to accept it at least, and without any in- 
vestigation of the matter, I did not know but what 
it was the doctrine of our people generally. I fin- 
ally began to study the matter for myself, and I soon 
became satisfied that if it was the Baptist doctrine I 
did not believe it. After trying to discourage the 
agitation of it for a few years, I studied the matter 
so much that I finally concluded to write on that sub- 
ject, which I did, and put out a small work, giving 
my objections to it, in the year 1880. 

After I had it printed, I sent quite a number of 
them to our brethren in the ministry, and to our Edi- 
tors. Some of the brethren found some very serious 
objections to it, and it was subject to severe crit- 
icisms. Elder Coffee, of Saline County, Illinois, 
wrote me that he thought my positions were well 
taken, but that he did not look for perfection in any 
human production. Elder Fulkerson, of Pope 



—263— 

County, Illinois, wrote me that he did not endorse it 
all, or something to that amount, but that he did not 
think there was anything in it that was very danger- 
ous, and if I would send him some he would try to 
sell them for me. I sent one to Elder Joe. Harris, 
of Perry County, Illinois, and if he ever told me 
whether he endorsed it or not, I do not remember it, 
but I was under the impression for a while that he 
did not; but he told me that he had heard it misrep- 
resented, that he had heard men speak of what was 
in it when he knew they had not read it, for those 
things were not in it. He told me that he said to 
some of them that the man that could answer it 
would have to get up before day. 

Elder Gilbert Beebe was the only editor that said 
anything about it through his paper, that I remember. 
He made quite a lengthy reply to one or two expres- 
sions that I made, which was published in the Signs 
of the Times, dated June 1, 1880. I wrote out a 
reply to his criticisms, in as kind a spirit as I was 
capable of, and sent it to him, and after he had kept 
it about three months, I sent him some stamps to pay 
postage on it, and requested him to return it if he 
did not wish to publish it, and by return mail I re- 
ceived it, but he paid the postage himself, and sent 
my stamps back to me. I have read his criticisms 
carefully, but I have seen no cause to retract any 
sentiment in what I had said. I have received quite 
a number of letters from brethren criticising me 
pretty severely ; but so far I still stand by it, and the 
probabilities are that I shall continue to do so. The 



— 264 — 

work denied two points, "Two Seeds in the Flesh," 
and "the pre-existence of the children of God." 

I sent one to W. H. Smith, of Crawford County, 
Illinois, and he wrote to me that he could not har- 
monize it with his Bible. He invited me to visit his 
Association, stating in his letter to me, that his Asso- 
ciation had a rule that to believe, or not believe the 
the Two Seed doctrine should not be a bar to fellow- 
ship among them. 

During the fall I saw Elder Benjamin Coats, of 
Clay County, Illinois, and while in his company, I 
asked him if he had seen my pamphlet, and he said 
he had not, but that he had heard the brethren make 
remarks about it. He said that some of the breth- 
ren had told him that I had undertaken to meddle 
with matters that I knew nothing about. I sent him 
a book shortly afterwards, but in a short time he was 
called away from this world, and I never learned 
what he thought of it. 

I accepted Elder Smith's invitation, and visited 
his Association, and when I got there I met a man 
whose name was Tabor. He seemed to be very 
noisy on the Two Seed doctrine. He and I 
were appointed to preach together at the meeting- 
house, at five o'clock in the afternoon, on Friday. 
In our arrangements he agreed to preach first. Dur- 
ing his discourse he had a great deal to say about me. 
He did not seem to be very composed, and he finally 
turned to me and said, "Brother Potter, if I had 
you out here in front of me instead of at my back, 
I think I could manage you better." He seemed to 



—265— 

be very much excited, and once in a while he would 
say, "Brother Potter will get up here and skin me all 
over directly." After he had pursued that course 
for a while, he said, "There never had been, and 
there never would be a sinner saved after the death 
of Christ." He turned to me and said, "Brother 
Potter, if your throat is too little to swallow that 
you had better go back to Skillet Fork." That was 
the name of my Association. He finally went off in 
a tangent, and when he stopped he remarked that he 
did not think that he had ever preached the Two 
Seed doctrine stronger than he was doing now. 
When he was through, I arose and told the people 
that this was my first meeting with Brother Tabor, 
and that I would not say that he was not a Christian, 
nor that he was not a gospel minister, for he had 
said some good things in his discourse. I told them 
that I did not see the Two Seed doctrine as he did, 
but that would not trouble me. I am not here to 
make a fight on that question. I then turned to 
Brother Smith, the Moderator of the Association, 
and said, "Your Moderator wrote me that you had a 
rule here, that the belief or disbelief of that doctrine 
was not a bar to fellowship here." So I took my 
text, and preached my sermon, without referring to 
him, or anyone else on that subject. After the ser- 
vices were over, I saw some of the brethren stand- 
ing around in groups, and they seemed to have some- 
thing very important among them. On that night 
there was preaching at the church house again, and 
every speaker from that on, referred to me in some 



—266— 

way during his discourse. Also, on Saturday, it was 
the same thing over, and they seemed to think that 
our Savior did not die as a substitute, but that he, 
being the head, was responsible for the sins of his 
body (the church), the same as a man's head would 
be responsible for what his hand did. 

After hearing so much of their noise, I made up 
my mind to come out plainly on all those points, if 
I should have an opportunity. After the Associa- 
tion was through with her business, on Saturday, and 
all the brethren had preached at the stand that had 
been appointed, I was invited to preach, by the 
Moderator, which invitation I accepted, and I occu- 
pied about an hour. I tried to be very plain, for I 
had become convinced that some of them thought I 
was afraid of them. 

While I was at this Association, I met a brother 
James, who seemed to be a warm advocate of the 
Two Seed doctrine. He was not a minister, but he 
used his influence in favor of the doctrine. He came 
to me at one time, and told me that he wanted my 
company on our way home as far as we went the 
same road, which was about fifteen miles. He had 
another brother in the buggy with him, but he said 
we could exchange seats that far. I readily consented 
to his proposal, and told him that I would ride with 
him. He said he wanted to take my book and con- 
vince me by it that I was wrong. I told him that if 
I was wrong I wished to be right, and that I should 
consider him my friend, who would show me my 
wrongs. Of course, I expected to ride with him, 



—267— 

but I was disappointed, for that was the last he said 
to me on that subject. When we got ready to start, 
I looked around for him, and saw that he had his 
partner in with him, so I said nothing more. I was 
told afterwards that he had never read my book, 
and that he did not know what was in it. I have 
suspicioned him as the man who told Elder Coats 
that I had meddled with things that I knew nothing 
about. 

There has never been anything very serious be- 
tween me and others on this question. As a rule 
all the brethren and I have gotten along pleasantly 
together, for if we differed, we did not say much 
about it, and the subject of Two Seeds is not very 
often referred to among us of late years. I still be- 
lieve as I wrote in 1880, on that subject. 

CHAPTER LVI. 

Ever since the division with the Missionaries and 
Campbellites, it has been a question of controversy 
as to the use of the preaching of the gospel. Some 
fifteen years ago, I gave my views on the subject, 
which I will give now, a little revised. We will 
define the gospel first, and then proceed, in a brief 
manner to give our views of it, which we have had 
for fifteen years or more. 

The gospel is good news, glad tidings, — the joy- 
ful intelligence of salvation through a crucified and 
risen Savior. It is called the gospel of God. " Paul, 
a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, 



—268— 

separated unto the gospel of God." Rom. i, i. It 
is also called the Gospel of Christ, for I am not 
ashamed of the gospel of Christ ; for it is the power 
of God unto salvation to every one that believeth : to 
the Jew first, and also to the Greek." Rom. i, 16. 
It is called the gospel of salvation. "In whom ye 
also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the 
gospel of your salvation, in whom also, after that ye 
believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of 
promise." Eph. i, 13. In another place it is called 
the gospel of peace. " And your feet shod with the 
preparation of the gospel of peace." Eph. vi, 15 
Paul, in speaking of what had been committed to 
his trust, called it a glorious gospel. 1 Tim. i, 11. 
Thus we have the Bible definition of the gospel that 
we are to preach in all the world to every creature. 
It was this gospel that our Lord commanded his dis- 
ciples to go into all the world and preach to every 
creature. We understand from the commission that 
we are required to preach the gospel to all, both saint 
and sinner. We are aware of the fact that we are 
often accused of not preaching to any but believers. 
The apostle says, " For the Jews require a sign, and 
the Greeks seek after wisdom. But we preach 
Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block* 
and unto the Greeks foolishness ; but unto them 
which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the 
power of God, and the wisdom of God." 1 Cor. i, 
22, 23, 24. Here is a plain, positive declaration of 
the apostle, that they preached the same gospel to 
the Jews and to the Greeks, to whom it was a stum- 



— 269 — 

bling block, and foolishness, that they preached to 
them that are called. The effect was different but 
the preaching was the same. 

The gospel does contain invitations ; but, as a 
rule, the majority of ministers fail to discern that it 
discriminates between the character of men in every 
invitation it makes. It never gives an invitation 
without describing the character it invites. In the 
invitation, " Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to 
the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, 
buy, and eat, yea, come, buy wine and milk without 
money and without price." Isaiah lv, 1. The 
thirsty are the ones invited. If none are thirsty, none 
are invited ; if all are thirsty, all are invited ; and the 
invitation extends just so far, and no faither than to 
the thirsty. The same invitation is made in John, 
vii, 37, Rev. xxii, 17. In Matt, xi, 28, we have 
another invitation to all that labor, and are heavy 
laden. Hence it would be wrong in any of us to 
conclude that the gospel had no invitations in it, and 
just as great a wrong for any to claim that those in- 
vitations are general. There is not one gospel invi- 
tation in the Bible, that does not describe the char- 
acter it invites. But the Arminian world seem to 
think they have a work to do that we have failed so 
far to find a Bible warrant for, and that is, they think 
it is the business of the minister to make people 
thirsty, and then invite them to come to the Lord. 
We deem it the business of God's ministers to invite 
those who are thirsty. But the gospel is not made 
up merely by invitations, and, as some would be 



— 270 — 

proud to lug into it, propositions, that is it is not 
merely an offer of salvation to the world, for it is not 
an offer of salvation at all. It is a proclamation of 
salvation through Christ. One grand reason why 
men make so many mistakes as to the object of 
preaching the. gospel, is because they fail to arrive 
at a proper conclusion of what it is. The primary 
object of the gospel is to encourage and comfort the 
children of God ; and they derive their comfort from 
what it proclaims to them, — not what it proposes to 
them on conditions. The Lord says, "Comfort ye, 
comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye 
comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her 
warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is par- 
doned : for she hath received of the Lord's hand 
double for all her sins." Isaiah xl, i, 2. Here is a 
proclamation, and not a proposition, to the children 
of God. The object is to comfort. When Our 
Lord ascended he led captivity captive, and gave 
gifts unto men. "And He gave some, apostles; 
and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and 
some, pastors and teachers ; For the perfecting of the 
saints, for the work of the ministry* for the edifying 
of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity 
of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, 
unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature 
of the fullness of Christ." We are often asked the 
question, what is the use of preaching, if your doc- 
trine be true ? 

There are four different objects for preaching the 
gospel in the above quotation, and not one of them 



•27i- 



for the making of saints. One is for the perfecting 
of the saints. The perfecting of the saints is to give 
them all the instruction in righteousness, that they 
may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 
It always directs their minds to a crucified Savior, 
as suitably adapted to their case, and that freely sup- 
plies all their wants. It reminds them of all his ordi- 
nances, and their obligations to observe them ; it 
teaches them to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, 
and. live soberly, righteously and godly in this present 
world. When they see that there is no worthiness in 
themselves, and that Jesus has bestowed all His 
worthiness on them, freely, without any considera- 
tion on their part, and they are made to view Him as 
altogether lovely, and that His ways are perfectly 
just and right, and that there is a beauty in holiness, 
as well as joys that the world is utterly incapable of 
giving, and they are led to an implicit confidence in 
Him and His word, they are then willing and able 
to conform to His will, in obeying all the injunctions 
of His gospel. The ministry is to point all these out 
to the saints, and present to them all the blessed 
promises of the gospel, with a description of the evi- 
dences of Christianity, and how they are to be tested. 
In this, it is for the perfecting of the saints. It is 
for the edifying of the body of Christ. To edify is 
to build up in knowledge and piety. In this edifica- 
tion ^the saints mutually hold sweet communion with 
one another, their company becomes pleasant, and 
their fellowship is strengthened. "Let us therefore 
follow after the things which make for peace, and 



— 272 — 

things wherewith one may edify another. Rom. xiv, 
19. " Let every one of us please his neighbor for 
his good to edification." Rom. xv, 2. "Even so 
ye, for as much as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, 
seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church." 
1 Cor. xiv, 12. Read 26th verse same chapter: 
" How is it then, brethren, when ye come together, 
every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath 
a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation? 
Let all things be done to edifying." Again: 
4 ' Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify 
one another, even as also ye do." 1 Thess. v, 11. 
Again: " And let us consider one another to pro- 
voke unto love and to good works." Heb. x, 24. 
Here is the edification of the body of Christ, and this 
is one of the objects of the ministry. This noble 
work is to be performed by the Lord's ministers, till 
we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the 
knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, 
unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of 
Christ. What a glorious gift has the minister of 
Christ! He has news to tell the children of God 
that in its very nature is calculated to draw them 
together as one man. Built up in the most holy 
faith of God's elect, they willingly and zealously 
contend for " the faith once delivered to the saints." 
And the ultimatum of the matter is, "That we be no 
more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about 
with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, 
and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to 
deceive." The Savior, when he was here with his 



— 2 73— 

disciples charged them, saying, " Take heed and 
beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the 
Sadducees." Matt, xvi, 6. He had allusion to their 
doctrine. The apostle considered it a matter of 
great importance that the saints be saved from false 
doctrine. He says, "But though we, or an angel 
from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than 
that which we have preached unto you, let him be 
accursed." Gal. i, 8. The gospel discriminates 
between the doctrine of Christ, and the false doc- 
trines. This is one of its grand objects. The apostle 
John makes an urgent appeal to the church, "Be- 
loved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits 
whether they are of God, because many false pro- 
phets are gone out into the world." i John, iv, i. 
Then, in view of the fact that the world is full of 
false teachers, and that the children of God cannot 
glorify God in the belief of false doctrines ; and 
that, although they may rejoice in it for the present, 
it never-looks farther ahead than this life ; while the 
doctrine of Christ is repulsive to the world, yet in 
the enjoyment of the hearty belief of that doctrine, 
they can look far beyond all things that pertain to 
this life, and enjoy all the glorious promises of the 
gospel, what an important work is preaching the 
gospel! It is in this way that God by the foolishness 
of preaching saves them that believe. Hence it is 
that even according to the position occupied by us, 
there are abundant reasons for the preaching of the' 
gospel to the saints. It seems to us that the man 
that would ask us the question, "What is the use of 



—274— 

preaching?" with all these things t efore him, does 
not think it a matter of much importance what a 
man believes. Indeed, we often hear them say that 
they do not think it matters what a man believes, so 
he is honest in it. Then we ask in all candor and 
sincerity, why make such a noise about the heathen? 
They believe in idolatry, but they are honest in that 
faith. We think it a matter of considerable impor- 
tance that the church of God hold tenaciously to the 
doctrine of God our Savior. The great apostle 
thought it a matter of so vast importance that he 
gave a very solemn charge to Timothy, "I charge 
therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who 
shall judge the quick and dead, at his appearing and 
kingdom ; Preach the word ; be instant in season ; 
out of season ; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long- 
suffering and doctrine. For the time will come 
when they will not endure sound doctrine ; but after 
their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teach- 
ers, having itching ears ; And they shall turn away 
their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto 
fables." II Tim. iv, 1,4. It sometimes occurs to 
us that the more unpopular the truth is, the far- 
ther some, even who profess to be Baptists, are from 
wanting to preach it. If there was ever a time when 
it was proper to oppose error, it is when that error is 
prevalent. One reason that Paul gave the charge as 
he did to Timothy, was because he knew the time 
was coming when it would not be endured. Breth- 
ren let us never be ashamed to preach the doctrine 
of Christ. But let us contend earnestly for the faith 



— 2 75— 

once delivered to the saints. By so doing, we save 
the church from false doctrine. Sound doctrine 
never has killed a church, but the want of it has. 
Sound practice never killed a church, but the want of 
it has. Sound preaching is more likely to produce 
sound practice than anything else. 

The object of the gospel is a subject of no little 
controversy among men in the world. While the 
Arminian world hold that it is the medium through 
which God offers salvation to the race of mankind, 
they generally make the impression that it is the only 
means of giving life to the sinner. Or, in other 
words, that it is absolutely essential in the work of 
quickening the sinner into divine life. While they 
succeed in making their people believe this they have 
a good plea for their missionary organizations. 
They tell the people in their Bible lectures, that hun- 
dreds and thousands of souls are now writhing in 
hell, simply because they were not blessed with the 
Bible and preachers. In this they limit the salvation 
of God exclusively to those people whose lots have 
been cast in a land of Bibles. Their theory damns 
all those who have died in heathenism, and that with- 
out any chance of salvation. We are far from believ- 
ing that God has wrapped Himself up in the Bible 
and minister, and has so limited his own operations 
that he can not and will not quicken sinners when 
and where and as He pleases ; without the means of 
the Bible and preacher. He is limited in nothing. 
It is the Spirit that quickens the sinner into divine 
life, and to limit the work of the Spirit to the proc- 



— 2 7 6 — 

lamation of the gospel, as the Campbellites and 
Missionary Baptists do, together with all others who 
hold that the gospel and Bible are essential to the 
conversion of sinners, is to deny the omnipresence 
of God. It is also to limit His power, and according 
to that position, He should not have made the prom- 
ise that He did to Abraham ; that in him, and his 
seed should all the nations of the earth be blessed. 
For if there is a nation of earth among whom there are 
no believers, the promise fails; for believers are the 
seed of Abraham. The literal Jews were the literal 
descendants, or literal seed of Abraham, but they 
were only one small nation. It could not have been 
that it was with those that all nations were to be 
blessed; but the apostle lets us know that believers 
are the seed of Abraham. Then believers are to 
bless all natious of the earth — not merely where the 
Bible and missionaries get to, but all nations. But 
where the gospel is preached, it is hid to some. 
The apostle says, "But if our gospel be hid, it is 
hid to them that are lost." II Cor. ii, 3. If they 
were so blinded that the gospel could not shine into 
them, and the Spirit of God could not operate in 
their hearts, unless it was through, or by means of 
the gospel, then they were beyond the reach of ever 
being converted. Who are they that the Gospel is 
hid to? Them that are lost. 



—277— 
CHAPTER LVII. 

During the time of my ministry, I have heard and 
read a great deal about the humanity of Christ. 
Some have claimed that His body existed in heaven 
from all eternity. Others who have not claimed 
that His human body existed, have contended that 
His human nature existed. The following was writ- 
ten by me in the year 1874, and was published in 
the Baptist Watchman: 

HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 

"In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall 
dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall 
be called: The Lord our Righteous," Jer. xxii, 6. 

This is a portion of the prophecy of Jeremiah, con- 
cerning the coming of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and is doubtless in perfect harmony with all 
that is written in the law and in the Psalms and 
prophets concerning Him. As there are some con- 
troversies in the present age about the humanity of 
Christ, and, we have often feared, many contentions 
by some without that strict and impartial investiga- 
tion of the subject that every one should give before 
taking a permanent position, we have concluded not 
only to take a position, but to appeal to inspiration as 
the author of whatever position we may assume, as 
well as our warrant for opposing erroneous senti- 
ments on this subject. 

The first impression that we wish to make is, that 



—278— 

it is the humanity and not the divinity of Christ that 
this brief chapter will treat of ; for while there may 
be a dissension between ourselves and others on the 
eternal humanity of Christ, we presume all will agree 
on His eternal divinity. If, therefore, the eternal 
existence of Christ should be denied in this investi- 
gation of the subject, it will be His humanity. The 
doctrine of the eternal humanity of Christ, we ex- 
pect to disprove in this chapter, and to this question 
the chapter is devoted. 

The verse preceding the one at the head of this 
chapter will doubtless prove advantageous to the 
cause in which we now engage. "Behold, the days 
come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a 
righteous branch, and a king shall reign and pros- 
per, and shall execute judgment in the earth." We 
do not apprehend for a moment that any would deny 
that the prophet in this language has direct allusion 
to Christ. Being confident that there will be no dis- 
pute on that point, we will examine closely what idea 
the language conveys. In the first place, allow us 
to say, that whatever of Christ might have existed 
before this, the branch here spoken of was something 
else. And while there are strong advocates for the 
doctrine that the body of Christ is eternal, and that 
at most he only received his blood from the Virgin 
Mary, His flesh and bone being eternal, we should 
notice very carefully what is said on the subject. 
Whatever it was that is so frequently called a branch 
of David, or seed of David, is what He took from His 
mother, whether it be blood exclusively, or flesh, 



—279— 

bone and blood. We may also further consider that 
this branch came out of David, and not out of eter- 
nity. "And there shall come forth a root out of the 
stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his 
roots. Isa. xi, i. Let us not forget that this is a 
prophecy, and that if it has ever been fulfilled, it has 
been since it was spoken by the prophets, and that 
the only existence this branch had at the time of the 
prophecy was in the loins of Jesse. If He did exist 
in eternity, in flesh and bone He could not be of the 
seed ot David according to the flesh. Neither could 
it be true that He is in any way related to us in fleshly 
relation. But, in the Scriptural account of the suc- 
cession of the kings of Isreal, we have the following: 
"And when He removed him (Saul) He raised up 
unto them David to be their king; to whom also he 
gave testimony, and said: I have found David the 
son of Jesse, a man after my own heart, which shall 
fulfill all my will. Of this man's seed hath God, 
according to His promise, raised unto Israel a Savior, 
Jesus." Acts xiii, 22, 23. 

Let it be understood that in whatever sense Christ 
is related to David, is what is meant here. If he was 
not related to him at all, he is not of his seed ; and 
more, to deny any relation is to deny the truth of the 
Scriptures quoted. Of this man's seed God had 
promised to raise up a Savior, Jesus. What are we 
to understand from the expression, "this man's 
seed?" Is it not plain to all that the manner in 
which it is used refers to his lineage, or posterity? 
Then Christ was of that particular lineage, and as 



— 280— 

he himself declares, he is the "root and the offspring 
of David, and the bright and morning star." Rev. 
xxii, 16. The seed of David is doubtless his offspring. 
It is in this sense that he is the Lion of the tribe of 
Judah. Revelations, v, ^. 

It is He that is spoken of in this language : "The 
sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver 
from between his feet, until Shiloh come ; and unto 
him shall the gathering of the people be." Gen. 
xlix, 10. Shiloh, in this text, simply means Christ, 
and Judah is one of the twelve sons of Jacob, the 
head of one of the twelve tribes of Israel; and by 
following the history of this tribe through to the 
coming of Christ, we are assured that no law-giver 
came out of it until Christ came. " For it is evident 
that our Lord sprang out of Judah ; of which tribe 
Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." Heb. 
vii, 14. If the Lord sprang out of Judah and was so 
carefully preserved through all generations from 
Judah down to the time of his birth of the Virgin 
Mary, was He not properly of the lineage of Judah? 
It is, surely in this sense that He is the seed of David 
according to the flesh. But the objector says that 
His flesh and bone and nature were in heaven, and 
were put forth in the womb of the Virgin Mary when 
she was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost, and then 
He took His blood. But a difficulty occurs in this. 
John, in his vision of the book sealed with seven seals, 
saw "A strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, 
Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the 
seals thereof? And no man in heaven, nor in earth, 



— 28l — 

neither under the earth, was able to open the book, 
neither to look thereon." 

After John had wept, doubtless under the true 
conviction of his heart of the dreadful state of affairs, 
looking at and meditating upon the justice of God's 
wrath kindled against a ruined and wretched world, 
" One of the elders said, weep not ; behold, the Lion 
of the tribe of Judah, the root of David hath prevailed 
to take the book, and to open the seven seals thereof." 

The difficulty is, where was the body of Christ, at 
that time? It could not have been in heaven, nor 
earth, nor under the earth; for none was found in 
either that was able to do the work of opening the 
sealed book. But the branch of David, the son of 
man, the high Priest from the tribe of Judah comes 
up, according to prophecy, fully authorized, to do 
the work. He, by being a near kinsman, can assume 
our debts, and is adequate to the task of paying them 
off for us. Divinity and humanity unite and com- 
pose a complete Son of God, and just as complete 
a Son of man. 

But let us proceed with the Scriptural testimony 
relative to His assuming humanity. The apostle 
gives the following admonition : "Let this mind be 
in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being 
in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be 
equal with God ; but made himself of no reputation, 
and took upon him the form of a servant, and was 
made in the likeness of men. And being found 
in fashion as a man, be humbled himself and became 
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." 



-282- 



Phil. ii, 5, 8. What was it that was made in the 
likeness of men? It could not have been his body, 
if it existed in eternity in the form of a man ; for 
that which already existed could not be made. It 
could not have been human nature if He always 
possessed that, and yet He was made in the likeness 
of men. In this it seems clear from the Scriptures 
already quoted, that he became like a man by taking 
on Him the nature and body of a man. Whatever 
the nature of a man is, is the human nature, and it 
is strictly in this sense that He was of the tribe of 
Judah. But I am asked, what was it that took this 
nature? I answer, Divinity. And when, Divinity 
took upon Himself the form and nature of a man, He 
possessed two natures — human and divine. When 
the angel explained to Joseph the condition of Mary, 
he did not say that an eternal human body or nature 
had been put forth in the womb of the blessed Vir- 
gin, but that something was conceived or begotten 
in her ; he did not say it was of humanity, but of the 
Holy Ghost. Mat. i, 20. ' 'Hence the truth that he 
is begotten of God, and is known in Scripture as the 
only begotten of the Father." John iii, 15, 18. 
Jesus being thus begotten of God and born of the 
Virgin Mary, comes into the world just what had been 
promised from the time man needed a Savior. 

It is sometimes said that "necessity is the mother of 
invention," and the doctrine of the eternal humanity 
of Christ being an invention of some one, we have 
often wondered what was the necessity of it. For 
the Bible never mentions eternal humanity at all. 



-283- 

Then let us ask all who may read this, and at the 
same time believe the doctrine of eternal humanity, 
what advantage is it to you ? Is the doctrine of the 
perfection of God in all attributes easier established 
by assuming that position? Is the doctrine of elec- 
tion and salvation by grace through Christ more eas- 
ily established by holding the doctrine of eternal hu- 
manity than it would otherwise be ? Is it any advan- 
tage to you in establishing any one or more of the 
doctrinal points in the Bible? If not, and you find 
nothing said about eternal humanity, why do you 
contend for it so earnestly to the great grief of those 
who wish to have, at least, one "Thus saith the Lord" 
for what they believe ? But it is sometimes urged 
that God is immutable, yet "It repented him that he 
had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at 
his heart." Gen. iv, 6. 

It is thought that as God never changes, the one 
who repented of making man was the humanity 
of God, or it was Christ. It is further urged that 
to say otherwise would involve us in a difficulty 
which we could not solve, for God never changes. 
But suppose we show that Christ as God is just as 
immutable as the Father, especially when spoken of 
as the Lord, as in this case, would not the same diffi- 
culty come up then? Would it be any easier solved 
then, by claiming the doctrine of eternal humanity? 
Let us see if the Son as well as the Father, is not 
unchangeable. "But unto the Son, he saith, Thy 
throne, O God, is forever and ever: a sceptre of 
righteousness is a sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou 



—284- 

hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; there- 
fore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with oil 
of gladness above thv fellows. And thou, Lord, 
in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth ; 
and the heavens are the work of thine hands. They 
shall perish, but thou remainest: and they shall all 
wax old as doth a garment. And as a vesture shalt 
thou fold them up, and they shall be changed ; but 
thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." 
Heb. i, 8, 12. In this quotation the Father addresses 
the Son. And it is certain the language of the text 
is as emphatic on the immutability of the Son, as it 
ever occurs relative to the Father ; but this is not all, 
for when we read in the Scriptures of the "three 
that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word 
and the Holy Ghost," he says emphatically, "and these 
three are one." I John v, 7. If the three are one r 
we would think that they were all three immutable 
alike. One is not contrary to the other, so that one 
can be unchangeable and the other not. So, without 
introducing any further testimony to prove the immu- 
tability of Christ, it is plain that to assume the doc- 
trine of eternal humanity does not let us out of the 
difficulty introduced in the case above referred to. 
Hence, we now propose to notice Him in His original 
capacity. In His original nature He is God. His 
name — Son of God — imports divinity : "The same in 
substance, equal in power and glory," with the 
Father and the Holy Ghost. He is called God in 
the highest sense; God over all; the true, the great 
God, Jehovah; Jehovah of hosts. 



—285— 

" In the year that King Uzziah died I saw also 
the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, 
and his train filled the temple." Isa. vi, 1. The 
Son of God, or "The Word," is equally holy with 
the Father. "And one cried unto another and said, 
Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts ; the whole 
earth is filled w'ith His glory." Isa. vi, 3. The 
works of creation are ascribed to him. "I said, O 
my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: 
thy years are throughout all generations. Of old hast 
thou laid the foundation of the earth ; the heavens 
are the work of thy hands." Ps. cii, 24, 25. How 
beautiful this language harmonizes with the first 
verses of St. John : "In the beginning was the Word, 
and the Word was with God, and the Word was 
God." We have known the position taken by those 
claiming eternal human nature, that there were two 
Words here; one that was God, which was divine 
nature, and the other that was with God, which was 
human nature. Such extremes are doubtless neces- 
sary in the work of advocating the doctrine of the 
eternal humanity of God. But in this text only one 
word is mentioned, and that one is both God and 
with God. It is one of the three that bear record in 
heaven ; and these three being one God, it is impos- 
sible to speak of one and not the others. If we call 
upon God in our petitions at a throne of grace, we 
address the Three ; and so, if we call on the Word or 
Holy Spirit. Either of these is properly God. One 
of the three, to-wit : the Word is the one mentioned 
in the verse quoted. The Word was in the begin- 



—286— 

ning, and was truly God; and also was just as truly 
with God, being with the Father and the Holy Ghost. 
•' The same was in the beginning with God. All 
things were made by him ; and without him was not 
anything made.'' 

Let us not forget that the subject here is the 
Word, one of the three that bear record in heaven; 
and that so far as His existence is concerned, He is 
co-eternal with the Father. We read on down to the 
14th verse; it is said, "The Word was made flesh, 
and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.' ' Here 
is when he assumes humanity. He was not flesh in 
eternity ; but the Word that was in eternity was made 
flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, 
the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full 
of grace and truth. But when we ask, how could 
that be made flesh that was always flesh ? we are 
met with this answer: It does not say when it was 
made flesh. That indeed is masterly, as if it could 
be eternal at all, and yet be made. It does not 
matter when it was made flesh ; but was it made 
flesh at all ? If so, flesh is not eternal ; for that which 
is made is not eternal. The Word was eternal, but 
flesh was not. Hence, when we speak of the Word 
that was in the beginning, we speak of the Son in His 
original capacity. We have already said that in His 
original nature He is God, and that the works of 
creation were ascribed to Him. " For thy Maker is 
thine husband. The Lord of Hosts is his name ; and 
thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel ; the God of 
the whole earth shall He be called." Isa. liv, 5. 



This quotation tells what He is, the nearness that 
He sustains to His bride, and what He shall be called 
in the future. We see all this verified ; for after He 
had taken upon Himself the form of a servant, and 
become obedient unto death, "God for that reason 
hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name 
which is above every name ; that at the name of 
Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, 
and things in earth, and things under the earth. And 
that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is 
Lord, to the glory of God the Father/' Phil, ii, 
9, 10. 

Although it was by Him the worlds were made, 
and He is truly said to have come down from heaven ; 
yet His flesh and bone ; or human nature, did not 
come down; for it was "Made of a woman, made 
under the law, (not made in heaven,) to redeem them 
that were under the law." Gal. iv, 4, 5. 

Notwithstanding He was in the fulness of time, 
made of a woman, yet in His original state all 
the attributes of God did belong to Him. We have 
already shown that He was as unchangeable as the 
Father, so is He everlasting. "But thou, Bethlehem, 
Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands 
of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto Me 
that is to be the Ruler in Israel ; whose goings forth 
have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah, v, 
2. Again, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning 
and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which 
was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Rev. 
i, 8. Also, "Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, 



—288 — 

and his Redeemer the Lord of Hosts ; I am the first 
and I am the last; and besides Me there is no God." 
Isa. xliv, 6. "Hearken unto Me, O Jacob and 
Israel, my called ; I am He ; I am the first ; I also am 
the last." Isa. xlviii, 12. 

The foregoing scriptures doubtless refer to the 
Word that was with God, and was God, by whom 
the worlds were framed. Not only does it prove to 
us conclusively that He possessed the attributes of 
God before He took our nature, but He still retains 
all the attributes while here in His humility. He is 
not only everlasting, but omniscient and omnipresent. 
"For where two or three are gathered together in 
my name, there am I in the midst of them." Mat. 
xviii, 20. "And no man hath ascended up to 
heaven, but he that come down from heaven, even 
the Son of man which is in heaven." John iii, 13. 

From this we are clearly taught that even when 
He was in the flesh He filled immensity. He was 
here teaching the people, and yet was in heaven. If 
it was necessary for Him to have a body in eternity in 
order to exist as the Son of man it would now 
become necessary for'Him to have two bodies ; one on 
earth, and one in heaven. But this text is some- 
times used to prove that He came down from heaven 
in a body, undertaking to show from it that whatever 
of Jesus ascends to heaven first came down from 
heaven. But it always seems to prove too much 
when it is all quoted, and according to the interpre- 
tation they give it, that nothing will go to heaven 
only what comes from there, the body of the Savior 



— 289— 

will be excluded from heaven ; for He is here in the 
body, and says no man has ascended up to heaven 
but the Son of man which is in heaven. His body 
is not in heaven when He makes use of the expres- 
sion. This is not all that we may learn from this 
text; for something has descended from heaven, and 
whatever is called the Son of man now without a 
human body, may also have existed in eternity as the 
Son of man without a human body. But it seems 
that this is as good an opportunity as is afforded in 
the Bible anywhere for us to ascertain whether the 
body of Christ did come down from heaven or not. 
Whatever was in heaven called the Son of man was 
that which had ascended ; and that which had as- 
cended, had come down from heaven. If the body had 
not ascended it had not come down from heaven, and 
yet something had come down from heaven, and 
that something had ascended while the body of Jesus 
was still on earth. Hence, it is easily understood 
from this that when the Bible gives any account of 
the Savior coming down from heaven, it has direct 
allusion to something besides his body. It must 
therefore be understood to be that which was in the 
beginning with God, which is the Word. He, in this 
capacity, as the Son of man, held the office of Re- 
deemer before the creation ; for, in view of His ful- 
filling this office, and as a part of his work, the crea- 
tion of other worlds, as well as our own, and all 
that it contains, was assigned Him by the Father. 
He, therefore, existed before He appeared in the 



— 290 — 

world; yea, He sat upon the mediatorial throne and 
executed His office from the beginning of time. 

Divinity is essential to His office as Redeemer. 
His divinity lays the foundation and qualifies Him for 
the assumption of the duties of His office. As divine 
He owes no obedience to that violated law under which 
sinners are condemned ; on Him, as the Son of God, 
that law has no claims whatever. As divine, He has 
a perfect right to undertake the office and work of 
the Redeemer if He shall so choose to do. As divine, 
He possesses every attribute of wisdom, power, holi- 
ness, justice, goodness and truth in an infinite degree 
to enable Him without the shadow of failure, to meet 
every demand, and perform every duty required of 
Him on behalf of God and man, and, finally, descends 
from heaven to earth, assumes human nature, takes 
upon Him a body of human flesh, bone and blood, to 
which body His divinity adds an infinite dignity and 
value, and all to His obedience, suffering and death. 
He is able to stand before the Eternal God, and bear 
all His just demands against His creatures, and He is 
also able to stand before men as "their Lord and 
their God," to deliver them from their emnity by 
His Holy Spirit, to raise up from corruption and 
misery, clothe them with His glorious righteousness, 
and reconcile them to God. Help is therefore laid 
upon one, not only willing, but able to save. In His 
assumed nature He is man. He came not to assist 
angels but men ; therefore, was He "the seed of the 
woman," "partaker of. flesh and blood" and one 
"made under the law," otherwise He could not have 



— 291 — 

obeyed, suffered and died, nor been our example, 
and faithful sympathizing High Priest, "Wherefore 
in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto 
His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faith- 
ful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make 
reconciliation for the sins of the people. Heb. ii, 
15, 18. Two distinct natures, human and divine, are 
(in a manner incomprehensible to us) united, and form 
one person, Immanuel, God with us. Everything 
belonging to God is ascribed unto and belongs to 
Him ; and everything belonging to man is ascribed 
unto and belongs to Him, sin excepted. 

Such is the Scriptural account of our most glori- 
ous Redeemer. 

CHAPTER LVIII. 

I will now give, in this chapter, a discourse, the 
substance of which has been published in the Ghurch 
Advocate. I now reproduce it and revise it, and by 
its study, the reader will find my views on several 
points of doctrine. I hope it may be beneficial to 
the reader, and also that it may be instructive. 

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, 
being predestinated according to the purpose of him 
who worketh all things after the counsel of his own 
will. That we should be to the praise of his glory 
who first trusted in Christ." Ephesians, i-n, 12. 

My object in introducing this text, is for the sub- 
ject matter contained in it. It is the language of the 
inspired apostle, to the saints at Ephesus, and to the 



-2Q2- 



faithful in Christ Jesus. The text seems to be a de- 
scription of what God has done for His people, with 
their future and eternal welfare in view. By notic- 
ing the few preceding verses we may come to a bet- 
ter understanding of the text. "Having made known 
unto us the mystery of his will, according to his 
good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself ; 
that in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he 
might gather together in one all things in Christ, 
both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, 
even in him." Then comes the text: "In whom," 
that is, in Christ, "also we have obtained an inherit- 
ance," etc. It is very evident from the wording of 
this chapter, from its commencement to the text, in- 
clusive, that all that the Lord has done for us, 
and every provision made for our eternal and 
spiritual welfare, has been done in Christ. All 
spiritual blessings are in Him; and the Apostle 
Peter has said: "Neither is there salvation in any 
other, for there is none other name under heaven, 
given among men whereby we must be saved," 
Acts iv, 12. Now, in order that we might have a 
proper understanding of the text, we will notice first, 
that it is according to God's will that we receive 
spiritual blessings in Christ. The text says "He 
worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." 
Let us then begin to read with the third verse, and com- 
ment. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us, with all spiritual 
blessings, in heavenly places in Christ." Everything 
we need is in Christ ; all spiritual blessings are there, 



—2 9 3— 

and that is all that men need. "According ashe 
hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the 
world, that we should be holy and without blame 
before him in love." I wish to notice some expres- 
sions that have been made concerning this passage 
of Scripture. One man of considerable ability, who 
believed in the doctrine of the pre-existence of God's 
children, referred to this text as showing that God 
had blessed His people with all spiritual blessings, 
in heavenly places in Christ before the foundation of 
the world. The text does not say so. Neither is 
there any other text that says so, and I am of the 
opinion that this able expositor of God's word would 
not have said so, had it not been that his creed re- 
quired it. It is not only a mis-quotation of Scripture 
but it is a gross misrepresentation of the apostle's 
language. The text does say "who hath blessed us 
with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in 
Christ, according as he hath chosen us in him, be- 
fore the foundation of the world." Not that He hath 
blessed us with those blessings before the foundation 
of the world, but that He had chosen us in Christ 
before the foundation of the world, and according 
to that choice, or agreeable to that choice, or in har- 
mony with that choice, or as a consequence of that 
choice, He has now, in time blessed the saints with 
spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. I also 
wish to notice a criticism that an objector to the doc- 
trine of unconditional election has frequently made 
upon the idea of being chosen in Christ before the 
foundation of the world. I have met several able 



—2 9 4— 

men in discussion, in my life, and in order to 
evade the force of this text, as proof of uncondi- 
tional election to eternal salvation, they have 
argued that the word "world" in this text referred to 
the Christian Era, and not to the universe; that the 
word was translated from the Greek "kosmos," and 
that it did not mean the universe, and that the per- 
sons chosen in this text were simply the apostles, 
chosen to the apostleship. I wish to reply to that 
criticism, and investigate it in the light of divine 
truth. That it was the apostles chosen to the apos- 
tleship, is without any foundation whatever, from the 
fact that the text does not say "chosen to the apostle- 
ship;" but it does say "chosen in Christ, that we 
should be holy," — not that we should be apostles — 
"and without blame before him in love." But if 
it was the apostles simply, that were chosen, it must 
be an unconditional choice of twelve men, at least, 
to holiness, and unblameableness before the Lord. 

But I wish to give one more reason why I cannot 
accept the idea that the choice in this connection 
means chosen to the office of apostles. The writer 
is the Apostle Paul, and when he uses the pronoun 
"we," and "us," he includes himself all along. He 
was not one of the twelve, neither was he chosen to 
apostleship prior to the beginning of the gospel dis- 
pensation. He was not called to be an apostle for 
several years after the commencement of the gospel 
day. This very fact presents a difficulty in the way 
of that theory that no man will ever touch. Unless 
the apostle Paul was one of the twelve, and was 



— 2 95— 

called on to be an apostle before the gospel dispen- 
sation was ushered in, neither of which is true, then 
the idea that the choice here means the election of 
the apostles to the apostleship, contradicts the very 
text in dispute. I simply believe that all the people 
of God are embraced in this text, and that they were 
chosen to eternal salvation. 

But to undertake to argue that it does not mean 
the universe because the term world is translated 
from the Greek "kosmos," is a grand mistake, as 
we propose to show. We do not have to be Greek 
scholars in order to find out the true meaning of the 
word "kosmos." Webster gives it in his Unabridged 
Dictionary. In English it is spelled c-o-s-m-o-s ; in 
Greek it is spelled k-o-s-m-o-s. Webster says: 
"Cosmos: (from the Greek kosmos. Order, har- 
mony.) i. The universe, or universality of created 
things, so called from its perfect arrangement. 2. 
The doctrine of the universe ; the system of law, 
harmony and truth combined within the universe." 
It does not seem from Webster that "kosmos" sim- 
ply means a dispensation of time, or a definite period 
or age, but that it means the universe ; and I claim 
that the apostles, as well as all the elect of God, that 
will ever sing his praises in heaven, were chosen in 
Christ Jesus before the creation of the universe, and 
that this text proves it. I wish to notice a few texts 
now, in which that word is used, to see whether the 
word "kosmos" generally means "age" or not. I 
call attention to Matt, iv, 8. It reads: "Again the 
devil taketh him up into an exceeding high moun- 



— 296 — 

tain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world 
(kosmos), and the glory of them." The kingdoms 
of the world, that the devil showed the Savior, were 
not the gospel dispensation, nor the Jewish dispensa- 
tion, and there is no construction that we can put 
upon that text, to make it mean an age, or a period 
of time, but it alludes to the universe. Again, 
Romans iv, 13. It reads: '"For the promise that 
he should be the heir of the world, was not to 
Abraham, or to his seed through the law, but through 
the righteousness of faith." The word "world" 
there is translated from "kosmos." Again, John i, 
10. "He was in the world, and the world was made 
by him, and the world knew him not." Here we 
have the word "world" three times, and all of them 
from "kosmos," and neither of them means an age. 
Again, Matt, xxv, 34. "Then shall the King say 
unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of 
my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you 
from the foundation of the world." (kosmos). That 
could not have been an age. 1 Tim. vi, 17, which 
reads, "Charge them that are rich in this world, 
(kosmos), that they be not high-minded, nor trust in 
uncertain riches, but in the living God who giveth 
us all things richly to enjoy." Again, 1 Tim. vi, 7* 
"For we brought nothing into this world, (kosmos), 
and it is certain we can carry nothing out." Again, 
1 Tim. iii, 16. "And without controversy great is 
the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the 
flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached 
unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world (kosmos) 



—2 9 7— 

received up into glory." Hebrews ix, 26. "For 
then must he often have suffered since the founda- 
tion of the world (kosmos,) but now once in the end 
of the world (Aionon, age), hath he appeared to put 
away sin by the sacrifice of himself." I claim that 
the word "world" is the universe; that kosmos does 
mean the universe ; let it mean whatever else it may, 
it sometimes means the universe, the created world, 
and I have no recollection of a single place where it 
is translated age. So I rely upon the arguments and 
Scriptures I have already introduced as positive proof 
that God chose His people in Christ Jesus, to eternal 
salvation, and arranged every provision, and every 
means necessary to bring about the consummation of 
His eternal purpose, in Christ Jesus, before He cre- 
ated this world in which we live. There is another 
position taken on this text by some that I wish to 
notice. One man who believed in the doctrine of 
the pre-existence of God's children, in reply to an 
article that I had written, some years ago, stated that 
he could not see how God chose His people in Christ, 
before the foundation of the world, if they did not 
exist then ; that He did not choose them into Christ, 
but that He chose them in Christ, was his argument, 
and that they must have been there, in some sense 
or other, or He could not have done it. I claim that 
God foreknew His people, and that He was as well 
acquainted with them, before they had a being, as 
He is after they have a being, and that He did choose 
them in Christ to eternal salvation, before the foun- 



— 2 9 8— 

dation of the world, although they had no actual 
being at that time. 

On the subject of the pre-existence of God's chil- 
dren, there has been a great deal said, and the legi- 
timate result of that doctrine is a denial of the resur- 
rection of the bodies of God's people. I was asked, 
in a debate on this question once, if the people of 
God did not exist through all eternity, where did He 
get them? My answer was, He made them, and I 
refer to Isaiah, liv, 5, as one text that proves that 
He did make them: "For thy Maker is thine 
husband ; the Lord of hosts is his name ; and thy 
Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. The God of 
the whole earth shall he be called." From this 
it sounds like the church had a maker, and I never 
could conceive of a maker of something that had 
existed from eternity. God's people were made. 
He made them of the dust of the ground. They 
were the first people in existence. The apostle Paul 
said, "The first man is of the earth earthly." If the 
earthly man is the first man, I argue that there was 
no man before him, hence, the earthly man is the 
first man. Again the apostle says: "Howbeit that 
was not first which is spiritual, but that which is nat- 
ural, and afterwards that which is spiritual." The 
natural man is the earthly man, and he was made of 
the dust of the earth, and there was no man before 
him, consequently it would be impossible for God's 
people to have existed before the first man existed. I 
published a work a few years ago, entitled, "Uncon- 
ditional Election Stated and Defined ; or a Denial of 



—2 9 9— 

the Doctrine of Eternal Children, or Two Seeds in 
the Flesh." I sent a copy of it to all the editors of 
Old School Baptist periodicals in this country. One 
man wrote a lengthy editorial in reply to the po- 
sition I took against the pre-existence of God's 
children. He said: "According to Bro. Potter's 
views, God has no people, only as he takes them out 
of Adam's family and adopts them into His own." 
That is just precisely what I believe, and I feel proud 
that I am understood, even if I am not endorsed, on 
that subject. I believe that the subject of salvation is 
the Adam sinner, and I do not believe that he had an 
eternal existence. The apostle speaks of God's peo- 
ple as being foreknown. "Whom He foreknew He 
did also predestinate, to be conformed to the image of 
His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many 
brethren." Again, whom He did predestinate, them 
He also called, and whom He called, them He also 
justified," etc. I take the position that if God's 
people were as old as Himself, that He did not fore- 
know them. To foreknow a thing is to know it 
beforehand, and He foreknew His people, and it 
was the people that He foreknew that He predes- 
tinated to be conformed to the image of Christ. I take 
the position that God purposed the salvation of His 
people, and that He saves the people according to 
His purpose. The text says that we are predestinated 
according to the purpose of Him who worketh all 
things after the counsel of His own will." This is 
the way we are predestinated. The apostle says, 
"We know that all things work together for good to 



— 3°° — 

them that love God"" — to them who are the called 
according to His purpose. 

There are two descriptions given of the children of 
God in that text; one is that they love God, and the 
other is that they are called according to God's pur- 
pose. I understand the call there to be that they are 
called to be saints. The apostle again, to Timothy, 
says: "Who hath saved us and called us with an 
holy calling, not according to our works, but accor- 
ding to his own purpose and grace which was given 
us in Christ Jesus before the world began." From 
this text we learn that it is according to His purpose 
and not according to our works. It cannot be accor- 
ding to our works and at the same time be according 
to His purpose, for His purpose is unalterable, but if 
the matter depended upon the condition of our 
works, His purpose might fluctuate as our works do; 
hence, it is not according to our works, but accord- 
ing to His own purpose and grace which was given us 
in Christ Jesus, before the world began. I see no 
good reason for objecting to the doctrine that God 
eternally purposed the salvation of His people, and 
that according to that purpose He saves them. To 
illustrate : Here is an old brother, who professes to 
be a Christian, and I presume that the neighbors, 
both saints and sinners, believe him to be just what 
he pretends to be — an honest, candid, upright Chris- 
tian man. If he is a saint, as he professes to be, 
what does God intend to do with him finally? I ask 
every conditionalist for an answer to that question. 
What do you believe God intends to do with that 



— 30i— 

man? that very individual man? Oh, you say, God 
intends to take him to heaven after awhile. That is 
just what I say ; that is God's intention concerning 
this man. He intends that this man shall live in 
heaven by and by. If that is God's intention now 
concerning this man, how long has it been His inten- 
tion concerning this same man? When did it begin 
to be His intention ? Was it at some period in the his- 
tory of this man's life? If it was God's intention one 
moment before he became a Christian, so far as the 
principle is concerned, He may as well have purposed 
it from all eternity, and I ask, if it is God's intention 
now to save him, w T as there ever a period either in 
time or eternity that it was not God's intention 
to save this man ? God's intention and God's pur- 
pose are about the same thing, and if He intends to 
save a man now, it has been His intention from all 
eternity to save that man, and if that is true with one 
that He saves, so is it true with all that He will ever 
save. Hence, it is consistent with the text, to say 
that "He worketh all things after the counsel of his 
own will." It is not according to man's will that he 
is saved, but "He worketh all things after the counsel 
of his own will," and if so, it cannot be after 
the counsel of our will. I now wish to see if I can 
find out how far back God's purpose runs, and I call 
attention to Eph. iii, n. "According to his eternal 
purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our 
Lord." His purpose is eternal, and we are predes- 
tinated according to that purpose. Now God's pur- 
pose to save us has been from all eternity, and that 



— 302— 

purpose embraces every soul that will ever be saved, 
and every means and every purpose necessary to 
bring about the end. Man is not saved according to 
his own will. The apostle says: "Having predes- 
tinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus 
Christ himself according to the good pleasure of his 
will, that we should be to the praise of the glory of 
his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the 
beloved.'' Who made us accepted in the beloved? 
God has already made us. accepted in the beloved. 
The beloved here is Jesus Christ, and God has made 
us accepted in Jesus Christ. "In whom — that is in 
Jesus Christ — we have redemption through his blood 
the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his 
grace." It will be seen that everything here has been 
done for us, not according to any of our wills, 
or actions, but all according to God's will and pur- 
pose and grace. "Having made known unto us the 
mystery of his will according to his good pleasure — 
not our good pleasure — which he hath purposed in 
himself, that in the dispensation of the fulness 
of times, he might gather together in one, all things 
in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are 
on earth, even in him;" then comes the text, "In 
whom also we have obtained an inheritance," etc. I 
wish to notice the strength of the word "obtained," 
for a moment. I was in a discussion with a gentle- 
man once, who made an argument that if we obtained 
a thing, that we got that thing by our own effort; 
that obtain was the same as to get by an effort. I, 
being aware that he would undertake that argument, 



—SOS- 
took pains to look the matter up, and I found out by 
reference to Webster's Dictionary, that we might 
obtain anything by the effort of another, as well as 
by our own effort. Hence, the reading of the text : 
"We have obtained this inheritance in Christ, not in 
ourselves ;" thus it is by what He has done for us that 
we have obtained it, and not what we have done for 
Him. Hence, the argument, that because we have 
obtained it, it must have been by our own effort, 
must simply, fall to the ground of its own weakness. 
But there is another thing that I wish to notice, 
and that is the inheritance. We have obtained an 
inheritance. An inheritance is something that we 
cannot buy. We cannot buy it with money, nor 
with love, nor with works. If we were worth mil- 
lions of dollars, we could not purchase an inherit- 
ance. We could buy property and possessions, but 
that would not be an inheritance. An inheritance 
is something that we receive on account of our re- 
lationship to some one ; for instance, you see that 
little boy over there ; he has a claim upon his father 
and mother for nourishment, cleanliness, plenty to 
eat and wear, protection from disease and danger, 
proper training and education, a doctor if he gets 
sick, patient, tender nursing during his sickness, and 
finally to his share of his father's estate, whatever 
that may be. This claim he now has upon his father 
and mother. How did he come by such a claim as 
that? It was not by his works. It was not because 
he loved his father and mother. There must be 
some other cause of his having such claims. The 



—36 4 — 

truth is, he came by those claims by his birth. He 
is an heir, and as an heir he is entitled to those 
things. There are only two ways of becoming heirs ; 
one is by birth, the other by adoption. He is an 
heir by birth. Sometimes men adopt children into 
their families, but as a rule, they do it because there 
is something in the child to admire. This is not the 
case when God adopts a child, from the fact that 
His children in their natural depraved state are un- 
worthy and have nothing in them to admire. But 
in adoption, in civil adoption, there is one thing 
true, if I wanted my son adopted into the family of 
some lord or noble, I could not have it done, just 
simply because I willed it,' and if the son himself 
was ever so eager for such an adoption, he could not 
have it just because he wanted it; if all our friends 
were to intercede, we could not have it simply be- 
cause it was our wish. But there is the will of one 
who must be consulted, and that is the will of 
Him who does the adopting. It must all be done 
according to His will. Again, the birth is not ac- 
cording to the will of man, but John says "who were 
born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of 
the will of man, but of God." Hence, it is all ac- 
cording to the will of God. There is another point 
about inheritance that I wish to notice, and that is 
that we were not eternally heirs, but we have ob- 
tained the inheritance in Christ. The idea of the 
pre-e*xistence of God's children involves the idea that 
we were eternally heirs. That is a mistake. Paul 
says that "Being justified by his grace we should 



—SOS- 
be made heirs according to the hope of eternal 
life." If we were made heirs, then we were not 
eternally heirs, and we wish that point noted. One 
more feature in the text that I wish to notice is con- 
troverted sometimes. "Who worketh all things 
after the counsel of his own will." I believe that 
the "all things" in that text have allusion to the all 
things necessary to our spiritual welfare, but that it 
does not have allusion to everything that takes place 
in the world, but "God worketh all things, per- 
taining to our salvation, after the counsel of his own 
will." I think that is a poor text to prove the doc- 
trine of the absolute predestination of all things 
whatsoever come to pass by. The text itself says, 
"Being predestinated according to the purpose of 
him who worketh all things after the counsel of his 
own will." So far as the doctrine of the absolute 
predestination of all things is concerned, I have 
thought that perhaps that question has been agitated 
among our brethren more than was profitable, and 
I have been opposed to its agitation. There have 
been brethren among us, who occupy a position on 
both sides of that issue, ever since I have been ac- 
quainted with the Baptists, and it has never been 
made a bar to fellowship in a great many places* 
Another reason I have for objecting to its agitation 
has been that I do not know what it is. I hear one 
man contend for it, and another man object to it, 
and I read their writings, and hear their arguments, 
and their objections pro and con, and both parties 
have claimed to be misunderstood, or misrepresented, 



_ $66— 

almost universally. If a man makes a statement of 
what he believes, I can soon tell whether I endorse 
that statement or not, but to be certain as to what 
the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all 
things is, I do not know where to go to find out. I 
was talking with a brother not many weeks ago, who 
seemed eager to agitate the question, but I begged 
him to let it alone, as I did not enjoy contro- 
versy on that subject, but he seemed eager to talk 
about it, as if he thought I dreaded him. I asked 
him if he believed that the devil was doing God's 
will. He undertook to evade the answer, until I re- 
marked to him that as he was a matter-of-fact sort of a 
man, and this was a doctrine of such importance to 
him, he must answer that question, and he finally 
admitted that he did believe the devil was doing 
God's will. I do not endorse that. If that is the 
doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things, 
I do not believe it. Another man once began the 
agitation of that question with me, and I begged him 
to let it alone, but finding that he was determined, I 
told him that if God had predestined all things and 
that was the cause of their coming to pass, that no 
man could evade the position that he was the author 
of all things, to which he replied that God's predes- 
tination of all things was not the cause of them 
coming to pass. I told him all right. I have no 
more to say. I have no fight to make against your 
doctrine of predestination. I always understood that 
God's predestination of the salvation of His people 
caused it to come to pass, and I would have applied 



— 3°7— 

the same rule to God's predestination of other things, 
but if it was not applicable I have no more to say. 
It will be seen, then, that I believe in the salvation 
of all the elect ; and that they are men and women 
of Adam's family, such as compose my congrega- 
tion, and the soul is born of the Spirit of God, in the 
work of regeneration, in time ; but at the dissolution 
of the body, the soul goes to heaven. Soul and 
spirit, in Scripture means the same thing frequently. 
Stephen said, "Lord Jesus receive my spirit." He 
saw heaven opened, and Jesus sitting on the right 
hand of the throne of God, and I believe his spirit 
went immediately to heaven, at the death of the 
body. Again, I believe that the body will be raised 
at the last day ; the very same body that we bury in 
the ground will be raised up from the dead, and 
fashioned like unto the glorious body of the Re- 
deemer. It will not be another body, gotten up in 
the place of the one we bury, for that would not be 
resurrection. To put down one body, and take up 
another, would not be resurrection. Resurrection 
means to restore to life that that once had life, and 
to give vitality to that which never had it, would not 
be resurrection. But the bodies of the saints die, and 
they are to be made alive, and wafted home to glory, 
forever to bask in the ocean of God's unbounded 
love, to praise Him throughout the ceaseless ages of 
a never ending eternity. Amen. 



- 3 o3- 
CHAPTER LIX. 

As there are many controverted points among 
Christian people, it will be impossible for me to give 
space to all of them in a limited work like this, but 
I will give one brief chapter on the subject "Born 
of Water." There are some people who, I think, 
are over-confident that this text proves that water 
baptism is essential to salvation. I give this chapter 
against that doctrine. 

"Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, 
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 

This text is relied on to prove that baptism is in 
order to remission of sins, and is referred to as con- 
fidently, as if there could be no question about it. 
Mr. Campbell argues that being "born again," and 
"being immersed," are, in the apostle's style, two 
names for the same act. Christianity Restored, page 
270. This being their view of the matter, it would 
be verv difficult for them to think of a man being 
born again, without thinking of water. For if he is 
right, no one has been born again in the absence of 
water ; hence it is not particularly necessary to them 
that you prove water baptism to them, in case of a 
new birth. They see as much water in verse 3 as 
they do in verse 5, and as much water in verse 7, as 
in verse 5, only water is mentioned in verse 5, and it 
is not in the other two, but they think it is understood, 
so it answers their purpose all the same. 

The nearest reference to baptism in this text is that 
water is in the text, and while many able coramenta. 



—S^- 
tors, who believe in baptismal regeneration, and some 
who do not. give it as their opinion that the Savior 
meant water baptism, it is mere opinion, and as it 
suits their theory very well, they have accepted that 
opinion, and are building upon it. We have read 
the opinion of quite a number of very able men on 
the text who hold that it is water baptism, and none 
of them, that we have ever read, give that opinion as 
the result of their studies as scholars. Mr. Camp- 
bell undertakes to prove that it is water baptism by 
other commentators, instead of giving his own 
scholarly reasons for it. Why should such a man as 
he call on Wesley, Whitfield, or any one else to 
prove it, if it could be proven by scholastic investi- 
gation ? It is not common for him to call on others 
for the proper rendering of a text. Why did he not, 
at least, give us the benefit of his own rendering of 
this text? 

We simply have the opinion of a great many who 
think the Savior meant water baptism, in the text, 
while we have the opinion of quite a number who 
differ. We do not see fit to begin to build a theory 
on the opinion of men, without some investigation 
at least. In the 3d verse, no doubt, the Savior 
meant the same birth that he did in verse 5, and in 
verse 3, He says, "Except a man be born again, he 
cannot see the kingdom of God." All scholars are 
aware of the fact that the words "born again," verse 
3, and also, in verse 7, in the original are "born 
from above," gennethe anothen, born from above. 
Hence the Savior told Nicodemus "Except a man be 



— 3io— 

born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of 
God." The apostle tells us, "But Jerusalem which 
is above is free, which is the mother of us all." 
Gal. iv, 26. 

All God's children are born of their mother, and, 
instead of our mother being below, she is above. It 
will not be hard for us to see what Paul meant by Jeru- 
salem which is above, if we will only refer to Rev. 
iii, 12, where John says, "Him that overcometh will 
I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he 
shall go no more out, and I will write upon him the 
name of my God, and the name of the city of my 
God, which is New Jerusalem, which cometh down 
out of heaven from my God : and I will write upon 
him my new name." 

Mr. Burgess accuses Elder Thompson of "pre- 
senting before the people, the inconceivable mon- 
strosity of a man born in the world with only one 
parent — a man born with a father, but without 
any mother." Thompson and Burgess debate, page 
219. This accusation was made because Elder. 
Thompson did not recognize water baptism in the 
text. We can hardly tell which would be the great- 
est monstrosity, for a child to be born of two moth- 
ers at the same birth, or to have no mother at all. 
If the water is the mother of which the children of 
God are born, then they have two mothers, the water 
is one, and Jerusalem which is above is the other. 
But lest some one should think we are not represent- 
ing them correctly, we will give another extract 
from Mr. Burgess, in the same book. He says, "It 



— 3 ii— 

is monstrous to suppose that but a single parent is 
requisite to the new birth ; and there can be no such 
thing as the sinner's becoming a new creature in 
Christ Jesus, until he comes forth out of the womb 
of the waters, and having been made dead to sin, is 
made alive to God." Page 204. We need not take 
much pains here to make any one see that hQ recog- 
nizes the water as the mother of the children of God ; 
and Paul says Jerusalem is our mother ; so we have 
two mothers. 

As the children of God are born from above, and 
Jerusalem is their mother, we doubt very seriously, 
that water in the text has any allusion to baptism at 
all. Before we accept it as meaning baptism, we 
shall demand the proof by better witnesses than the 
opinion of men, even if they are able. If there is no 
other method of proving it, it cannot be proven, and 
it is strange that there is some way of proving it, and 
yet it has never been done. The burden of proof 
rests on those who affirm that water, in the text, 
means baptism, and we shall take the privilege of 
denying it until the evidence is produced. 

There are only two births known to the universe; 
and one of them is the fleshly, and the other the spir- 
itual birth. They are both mentioned in John iii, 6, 
and John i, 12, 13, and in 1 Pet. i, 23. The birth 
of the flesh is the birth by which we are born into this 
world, and the birth of the Spirit is that birth which 
brings us into spiritual relationship to God. When we 
are born of the Spirit, or into the spiritual family, we 
are born from above. We are of the opinion that 



— 3 I2 — 

the water in the text means the water of life, that is 
so frequently mentioned in the Scriptures. But we 
do deny that it means water baptism, for reasons 
already assigned, and that we will now give. 

If the believer in Christ is born of God, (as the 
Apostle John says he is, "Whosoever believeth that 
Jesus i^the Christ is born of God," I John v, i,) 
and none are to be baptized but believers, then it nec- 
essarily follows that the believer does not have to be 
baptized in order to be born. The only way to bap- 
tize a man before he is born of God, is to baptize 
him before he believes. This the Campbellites will 
not do. Then to be born of water and of the Spirit 
cannot mean the water of baptism, because the be- 
liever is born of God before he comes to baptism. 

But the Campbellites get matters fearfully mixed 
up, trying to make this text answer their purpose. 
We have already noticed that Mr. Brents said, "The 
church of God is entered by a birth of water and 
Spirit," and that Mr. Campbell's Living Oracles 
say, "And the Lord daily added the saved to the 
congregation," and that the whole fraternity of them 
teach that born of water means baptism. Let us put 
these three positions of Campbellism together, and 
look at them. 

First — The sinner must be saved before he enters 
the church. 

Second — The sinner must be baptized before he 
is saved. 

Third — The sinner must be added to the church 
by baptism. 



— 3!3 — 

The Campbellites alone are responsible for these 
contradictions; the Bible does not teach them, and 
they are not misrepresentations by the opponents of 
Campbellism ; but each one of the three positions is 
a prominent and distinguishing feature of their doc- 
trine. 

But another difficulty arises, that we think worthy 
of attention. According to Campbellism, there has 
been a wonderful change of affairs since the conver- 
sation of the Savior with Nicodemus. The church 
had not been set up at Jerusalem yet, they say, and 
there was no church for Nicodemus to have been 
born into. They teach that when a man is born 
again, he is born into the church. 

Mr. Brents says, "Having seen that a man must be 
born again, in order to enter the kingdom, and that 
it is the office of the new birth to introduce the party 
born into the kingdom, it follows that a more im- 
portant subject never engaged the attention of man." 
pp. i8q and 190. Mr. Campbell says, "This sec- 
ond, or new birth, which inducts the party born into 
the kingdom of God, is always subsequent to a death 
and burial, as it will be into the everlasting kingdom 
of glory." .Chris. Res. p. 163. 

If it is the office of the new birth to introduce the 
party born into the kingdom, and there was no king- 
dom till the day of Pentecost, as they teach, could 
Nicodemus have been born again, if he had wished 
to, at the time of his conversation with the Savior? 
If the church was not setup till the day of Pentecost, 
it is certain that he could not have been born into 



— 3H— 

the church. Was it true or not, at the time the 
Savior made use of this language, that a man must 
be born again to be saved? Could Nicodemus have 
been saved at that time without being born again? 

We think, to put the most liberal construction on 
the subject, the Campbellites should fix this matter 
up, so they will have it themselves. It is very evi- 
det that "born of water and of the Spirit," does not 
mean water baptism ; for there is no mention of 
baptism as a birth in all that is said on that subject. 
The text itself says nothing about baptism. 

Dr. Doddridge says, "When our Lord says, except 
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of of God ; it is (after all the 
contempt with which that interpretation has been 
treated) very possible he may mean, by a well known 
figure, to express one idea by two clauses, that is, 
the purifying influence of the Spirit cleansing the 
mind, as water does the body; as elsewhere to be 
baptized by the Spirit operating like fire. But if 
there is indeed a reference to baptism in these words 
(which I own I am much inclined to believe) it will 
by no means follow that baptism is regeneration." 
It will be easily seen that while the Doctor is inclin- 
ed to believe reference is had to baptism, that he 
recognizes the fact that it is merely an opinion with- 
out any proof, but if it is baptism, yet baptism is not 
regeneration. 

The argument by this learned divine was not got- 
ten up to oppose Mr. Campbell's views, for it was 
written in the year 1745, nearly one hundred years 
before Campbellism was known. 



—315— 
CHAPTER LX. 

On the subject of work of the Holy Spirit, in the 
regeneration of the sinner, the following gives the 
position, as held by me in the year 1884, when I 
debated with Elder Treat, on that subject. It is 
taken from the notes of a speech that I made in that 
discussion, and was written out directly after the dis- 
cussion was over. 

" In the conversion of the sinner, the Spirit of God 
operates directly and immediately upon the heart." 

Definition: — By "the conversion of the sinner," 
I mean his regeneration ; or his being born of God. 
By the term "Spirit of God," I mean that Spirit 
which Jesus said gives life ; or bv which the love of 
God is shed abroad in our hearts. By the term "im- 
mediately" and "directly," I mean that the Spirit of 
God comes into immediate contact with the heart. 
There is no medium between the Spirit and the 
heart. 

We can judge better by what agency or means 
the sinner is converted, and how that agency or 
means operated in his conversion, by first finding 
what has been done for the sinner in his conversion. 
Natural agencies, operating on natural substances, 
will always be productive of natural results ; so that 
in order to elevate that which is of itself natural to 
be spiritual, it becomes necessary that the agency of 
the Holy Spirit be employed. 

The Holy Spirit, in its operations upon that which 
is natural, never becomes natural itself, but in every 



— 3 i6 — 

case of which we have any Scriptural account, it 
makes that upon which it operates, spiritual. By the 
immediate operation of the Holy Spirit, in the mirac- 
ulous conception and birth of the Son of God, 
although the mother of Jesus was natural, yet there- 
suit of this immediate operation was the birth of a 
spiritual man into the world. 

In consequence of this great work of the Holy 
Spirit, bringing a man into the world that was not 
natural, but spiritual, as the apostle says : "Howbeit, 
that was not first which is spiritual, but that which 
is natural; and afterwards that which is spiritual," 
I Cor. xv, 46, He is said to have come from heaven. 
So when Jesus said to Nicodemus, "Except a man 
be born again," John iii, 3, the marginal reading 
says, "Born from above." 

It is, also, in consequence of the immediate oper- 
ation of the Spirit of God upon the natural body, in 
the resurrection, that it is changed from a natural to 
a spiritual body. 

You may claim that since the days of the apostles, 
miracles have ceased ; and that there are no such 
things as miracles now ; but if you mean by that, that 
the conversion of a sinner is the result of natural agen- 
cies, and that it takes place agreeable to the estab- 
lished laws of nature, I deny it. If you mean that 
there are no invisible workings of the Spirit in the 
heart of a sinner in his conversion, I deny it. It is 
natural for men who are born of natural parents to 
be natural men, but it would be very unnatural for a 
man who is born of natural parents to be spiritual. 



— 3 J 7— 

Let it be borne in mind, that the man that is born 
of natural parents, and is, therefore, natural, is the 
same man that must be born again, and thereby be 
made spiritual. We can readily conceive how men 
come into possession of human nature, — it is by be- 
ing born of human parents. It is natural for them 
to possess human nature ; but is it also natural for 
the same man to be made partaker of the divine na- 
ture ? 

We might learn something about the work of the 
Holy Spirit, in the conversion of the sinner, by an 
investigation of his condition, after his conversion. 
The man that is born of God is in possession of what 
no man can have by a natural birth, and what can 
not be brought about by natural agencies or exer- 
tions, and he is in possession of those things from 
the moment of his conversion. He is not converted 
until he has them. This being true, he must of 
necessity receive them in his conversion. Rom. viii, 
18: "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead be- 
cause of sin ; but the Spirit is life because of right- 
eousness." From this text we learn that the believer 
has Christ in him. I Cor. ii, 16: "But we have the 
mind of Christ." This is a clear statement that the 
man that is born of God has the mind of Christ." 

Rom. v, 5: "And hope maketh not ashamed; 
because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts 
by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." Then 
the child of God has the love of God in his heart. 
He has been delivered from the power of darkness 
and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son. 



- 3 i8- 

Col. i, 13. Created in Christ Jesus unto good works. 
Eph. ii, 10. He has been quickened together with 
Christ. Eph. ii, 5. The eyes of their understand- 
ing have been enlightened. Eph. i, 18. They were 
sometime darkness, but are now light in the Lord. 
Eph. v, 8. They have passed from death unto life. 
I John iii, 14. God dwelleth in them. I John iv, 16. 

The man that is born of God has all this, and can- 
not be truly said to be born of God unless he does 
have them. In his unconverted state, he has none 
of them ; so it necessarily follows that he receives 
them in his conversion. He must receive them by 
an immediate or direct operation of the Spirit of God. 
It is certainly a heart work, or a work in the heart, 
that gives the sinner all these things. 

I argue that in the conversion, or regeneration, of 
the sinner, there is something more done for him than 
merely going out from one government to another. 
A man might come from England to this country, 
and take the oath of allegiance to the government, 
and not undergo a change of heart, or character, or 
any other essential change in himself. But a man 
cannot pass from the power and dominion of sin to 
the service of God, and still possess the same heart, 
character, will and affections. 

A man may come from England to this country, 
without being born again ; but he cannot pass into 
the kingdom of God, and become a loyal citizen of 
His government unless he is born of God. He can- 
not know the things of God without he first has His 
Spirit. Paul says, "Now we have received, not the 



— 3 X 9— 

spirit of the world, but the Spiiit which is of God ; 
that we might know the things that are freely given 
to us of God." I Cor. ii, 12. If we knew as well 
the things that are freely given to us of God, while 
we were yet without the Spirit, then we need not 
receive the Spirit for that purpose. But we have 
received the Spirit of God for a special purpose ; and 
that is that we might know the things that are given 
to us of God. Is the gospel one of the things that 
are freely given to us of God ? If so, then the Spirit 
we must have to know the gospel. 

"Which things also we speak, not in the words 
which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy 
Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with 
spiritual," verse 13. The apostle argues here, that 
he and the other apostles speak the things that are 
freely given to us of God, and that in order to know 
them when they do speak them, we must first receive 
the Spirit of God. I argue that this is the burden of 
the apostle's argument here, and I call your especial 
attention to it, and request that, if I am mistaken, 
you tell me wherein I am wrong. Do not pass this 
without giving it some notice," for I think I have a 
point here in my favor, and if you do not think so, 
please tell me why. The apostle continues: "But 
the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit 
of God; for they are foolishness unto him, neither 
can he know them, because they are spiritually dis- 
cerned," verse 14. I claim that this text, and its 
connection teaches that it is absolutely necessary, 
that before a sinner can know the things of the Spirit 



— 320 — 

of God, he must have an immediate operation of the 
Spirit upon his heart. 

Argument I. — I argue that the apostle teaches the 
same thing, in II Cor. iv, 3, 4. " But if our gospel 
be hid, it is hid to them that are lost; in whom the 
god of this world hath blinded the minds of them 
that believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel 
of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine 
unto them." In this text the god of this world, the 
prince of the power of the air, that worketh in the 
children of disobedience, is represented as blinding 
the minds of unbelievers, so that the light of the 
gospel does not shine unto them. If you blind every 
avenue of light into your room, you will have a dark 
room, even at noon day, when the sun shines with his 
greatest splendor. Until those blinds are removed, 
the sun will not shine into that room. Neither is it 
the office of the light of the sun to remove blindness, 
but simply to give light to those who can see. A 
man can not see when he is blind, no matter how 
brightly the sun may shine. Now, the gospel shines, 
or gives light, but it is no more the office of the light 
of the gospel to remove blindness than it is the office 
of the light of the sun to open your window blinds so 
that it can shine into your room. If you were shut 
up in a dark room where no light could come, the 
sun would be hid to you. So, the gospel is hid to 
the unbeliever, because his mind is blinded by the 
god of this world ; if then, the preaching of the gos- 
pel to him, or the reading of the Bible to him is 
God's only medium of enlightening him, He will 



—321 — 

never reach him. The blindness of his mind must 
be removed some way or other before the light of the 
gospel will shine unto him. I argue in such a case, 
the absolute necessity of the direct and immediate 
operation of the Spirit of God, to remove the blind- 
ness of the mind, so that the light of the gospel can 
shine unto them. All unbelievers are thus blinded, 
so that in every case of conversion, a direct influence 
of the Spirit is necessary. I call especial attention 
to this text, and the argument I make from it. 

Matt, xiii, 3, 11, "And he spake many things unto 
them in parables, saying, Behold a sower went forth 
to sow; and when he sowed, some seeds fell by the 
way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up ; 
some fell upon stony places where they had not much 
earth; and forthwith they sprung up, because they 
had no deepness of earth ; and when the sun was up, 
they were scorched, and because they had no root, 
they withered away. And some fell among thorns, 
and the thorns sprung up, and choked them ; but 
others fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, 
some a hundred fold, some sixty fold, some thirty 
fold. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. And 
the disciples came and said unto him, Why speakest 
thou unto them parables ? He answered and said 
unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the 
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it 
is not given." Doubtless this parable is intended 
to teach the effect of the preached gospel, depend- 
ent on the state or condition of the heart. The un- 
converted heart is represented by the way side, and 



— 3 22 — 

the gospel fails to reach such a heart effectually. 
The fruit of the gospel in such a heart is as certain 
to be a failure as the natural seed sown by the way 
side, which fowls devour up. The same is also true 
in the case of the stony ground, and the thorny 
ground. In the parable, the reason all the seed sown 
on these three different grounds was a failure, is 
because the ground had not been previously prepared 
for the reception of the seed. As that is true, liter- 
ally, so it is true that the human heart must, of 
necessity, have a previous preparation for the recep- 
tion of the gospel, in order that the gospel bring 
forth fruit to perfection. The seed that fell into the 
ground, that had been prepared for the reception 
of seed, was the only ground that was productive of 
fruit, as the result of sowing seed in it. Just as 
that is true, literally, so, in order that the gospel 
preached to a person bring forth fruit, it is abso- 
lutely necessary that the heart have previous prepa- 
ration. Seed could not fall in good ground, if there 
was no good ground for it to fall into, and the fact 
that some seed fell into good ground is the most con- 
clusive evidence that the ground was good before 
the seed fell into it. So the heart must be good be- 
fore the gospel is preached, if it brings forth any 
fruit. Then, as we have found from this parable, the 
necessity of a previous preparation of heart in order 
to the reception of the gospel, we will see next 
where this preparation comes from. Prov. xvi, i, 
"The preparations of the heart in man, and the ans- 
wer of the tongue, is from the Lord." I hope you 



—223— 

will give this your special attention, for I am anx- 
ious that my argument be answered, if it can be ; 
and it certainly can, if I am wrong. Do not tell us 
that man prepares his own heart, for you know that 
would contradict God's word. 

" And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why 
speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered 
and said unto them, Because it is given to you to 
know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven but to 
them it is not given." The disciples knew the mys- 
teries of the kingdom of heaven, and the Savior 
speaks of that knowledge as something that had been 
given to the disciples ; but it had not been given 
to the multitude. The word "mysteries" in Scrip- 
ture is not used in its classical sense— of religious 
secrets, nor yet of things incomprehensible, or in 
their own nature difficult to be understood, but in the 
sense of things of purely divine revelation. The 
things of the kingdom of heaven then, to a man that 
has not been born again, are mysteries. "Except a 
man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of 
God." John iii, 3. So the multitude, to whom He 
spake this parable, did not know the mysteries of the 
kingdom, because they had not been born again. 
The disciples had been born again and therefore they 
knew the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. To 
those who are born again, those mysteries are fully 
published in the gospel. Jesus said, "No man know- 
eth the Son, but the Father ; neither knoweth any 
man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomso- 
ever the Son will reveal him." Matt, xi, 27. So a 



— 3 2 4— 

revelation is necessary in order to know Jesus. That 
revelation is something more than merely presenting 
Him to them in person, and having Him testify to them 
that He is the Christ, as He did when on earth ; for 
that failed to teach them to know Him then. It 
means more than to simply read the four evangelists, 
now, for what we read in them is what the people in 
that day witnessed with their own eyes and ears, and 
after they saw and heard all that we read of in the 
evangelists, they did not know Him. He said Him- 
self that a revelation was necessary to a knowledge 
of Him ; hence He meant more than simply seeing 
and hearing. I have never yet seen any account of 
but one revealing agent in the Bible, and that is 
God's Spirit. I Cor. ii, 10. In this revelation a di- 
rect and immediate operation of the Spirit is neces- 
sary. No man can understand the gospel without it. 
I now quote Heb. iv, i, 2: "Let us therefore fear, 
lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, 
any of you should seem to come short of it. For 
unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto 
them; but the word preached did not profit them, 
not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." 
The gospel preached presents Jesus with all the ful- 
ness of His grace and mercy, and His suitable adapt- 
ability to the needs of lost sinners, and as the only 
way of life and salvation, and directs the attention 
of its hearers to that heavenly rest for which all the 
saints hope, and to which faith is the avenue, and 
from which unbelief excludes. So then, in order to 
a profitable hearing of the gospel, faith is a pre- 



— 3 2 5— 

requisite. It did not profit them, because they did 
not have faith. The gospel preached is the food of 
the soul of the saint, and as our natural food must 
pass into flesh and blood when it is taken into a 
healthy stomach, so the preached word is good and 
profitable to our souls when we appropriate it to our- 
selves in faith. It is not the office of the natural food 
that we eat to prepare the stomach for its reception 
and digestion. So the gospel does not prepare the 
heart for the reception of itself by faith. Neither do 
we prepare our own hearts, as I have already proved. 
Hearing the gospel, alone, is of as little profit to us 
as undigested food in a bad stomach. Those who 
hear the gospel profitably must first have faith. If 
the gospel must necessarily be preached to them be- 
fore they have faith, then it follows that they must 
of necessity hear the gospel unprofitably before they 
can have faith. If this preaching must be done in 
order that a man have faith, then we have it that a 
man must hear the gospel unprofitably in order that 
he may have faith, after which he will hear the gos- 
pel profitably. Now the truth taught in this text is 
that a man must have faith to enable him to hear the 
gospel in a profitable manner. This faith is the fruit, 
of the Spirit of God. Gal. v, 22 : "But the fruit of 
the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentle- 
ness, goodness, faith.'' If faith is the fruit of the 
Spirit, and a man must have faith in order to hear 
the gospel profitably, then a direct or immediate 
operation of the Spirit upon the heart is necessary ; 
for man believes with the heart, and the Spirit is not 



—326— 

likely to bear fruit where it is not. If it produces 
faith in the sinner's heart it must be in his heart. 
This must take place before he receives the gospel. 
If this is not so, tell us what is, and how you know. 

Argument II. — I argue that in the conversion 
and regeneration of the sinner there is an internal 
work done, that external ideas or evidences will never 
accomplish. The first proof text I will give, in sup- 
port of this argument, is Ezek. xxxvi, 25, 26, 27, 
"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and 
you shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from 
all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also 
will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within 
you ; and I will take away the stony heart out of 
your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. 
And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you 
to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judg- 
ments, and do them." 

From this passage, we are taught that the external 
restoration must be preceded by an internal restora- 
tion. The change in their condition must not be 
superficial, but must be based on a radical renewal 
of the heart. Then the heathen, understanding from 
the regenerated lives of God's people how holy God 
is, would perceive Israel's past troubles to have been 
only. the necessary vindications of His righteousness. 
Thus God's name would be sanctified before the 
heathen, and God's people be prepared for outward 
blessings. "Sprinkle clean water" is a phraseology 
of the law ; the water mixed with the ashes of an 
heifer sprinkling the unclean, which the apostle says, 



— 3 2 7— 

"sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh;" but the 
thing signified by this sprinkling, is the cleansing 
blood of Christ sprinkled on the heart and con- 
science. "From all your idols," means covetous- 
ness, and prejudices against Jesus Christ ; as literal 
idolatry had ceased among the Jews, since the cap- 
tivity. "I will give you a new heart," must be that 
He will give them a new mind, or will ; as Paul tells 
in Phillipians, "For it is God that worketh in you 
both to will and to do of his good pleasure." "And 
a new spirit will I put within you," means that He 
will give them a proper motive or principle of action. 
"I will take away the stony heart." The stony 
heart is certainly the stony ground mentioned in the 
parable, in Mat. xii, that I have already quoted. A 
stony heart represents something unimpressible in 
serious things It is unfit to receive the good seed 
so as to bring forth fruit. So the Lord says He will 
take it away. I believe this work is done in the con- 
version of the sinner, and it is an internal work that 
no other agency can do but the Spirit of God. 

If He takes it away, and gives a heart of flesh, 
which He says He will do, then He gives a heart 
that is impressible ; and one into which the gospel will 
find access, and bring forth fruit. Such is the good 
and honest heart that the Lord speaks of in the par- 
able. But do not forget that God gives this new 
heart, and that before the gospel is preached to him 
profitably. Man cannot make himself a new heart, 
but God can give him one, and He says in this text 
that He will. "And I will put my Spirit within you." 



- 3 28- 

This is the work of the Lord, and He does all this 
before they walk in obedience to His law. Thus the 
ability to obey is given in conversion, or in the 
change of heart. I argue that all this is the effect 
of the immediate operation of the Spirit of God 
upon the heart, and I further claim that there is no 
one regenerated for whom this work has never been 
done. This work of the Spirit is productive of 
spiritual mindedness, which is life and peace, and 
all who are carnally minded are dead ; for to be 
carnally minded is death. 

All men in an unconverted state are carnally 
minded. All who are regenerated are spiritually 
minded, which is life and peace. This work is an 
internal work, and the mind is changed, which can- 
not be the voluntary act of the man himself, for if 
it could be there would be no necessity of God doing 
it for him. But God says He will do it, and He 
would not say it if He did not intend to do it. 
When it is done it is productive of good works. 
Thus, good works are the products of a new heart, 
and not the cause of it. A new heart is the product 
of God's work, and not the cause of it. 

Life is given, in the conversion of a sinner, and 
Jesus plainly says, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth." 
John vi, 63. To quicken is to give life, and I know 
of nothing that quickens but the Spirit. Eph. ii, 4, 
5, -"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great 
love, wherewith he loved us, even when we were 
dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ.' ' 
The work of quickening is done in the conversion 



— 3 2 9— 

of the sinner ; and as it is the work of the Spirit to 
quicken, then the Spirit does a work in the conver- 
sion of the sinner. This work is distinct from, and 
in addition to, the preaching of the gospel, or else 
man would never be able to believe the gospel. It 
is not an external work, it is not outwardly on the 
body, the apostle did not teach the brethren that their 
bodies had been made alive, but he had allusion to 
the work of His Grace in their hearts. How such a 
work is done without a direct and immediate opera- 
tion of the Spirit of God in the heart I cannot tell. 
God says He will put His Spirit within them, and He 
must either put His Spirit in them to make them 
alive, or else He makes them alive without His 
Spirit, and then afterwards gives them His Spirit 
because they are alive. If He makes them alive 
before He gives them His Spirit, then it is not the 
Spirit that makes them alive. I claim that I have 
proven that it is the Spirit that makes alive, and I 
have also proven that it is an internal work from the 
text I have quoted in Ezekiel. Not only is it an in- 
ternal work, but it is a work in the heart. How 
much plainer could anything be made? If I have 
misunderstood these passages, do tell me what they 
mean, for I am very anxious to know. Give me 
something better than merely your word. 

Argument III. — My third argument is based on 
the fact that in the conversion of the sinner, there is 
a work of creation, which precedes any good works, 
and imparts a divine nature to the sinner. To prove 
this, I quote Eph. ii, 10, " For we are his workman- 



—33°— 

ship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which 
God hath before ordained that we should walk in 
them." His workmanship means a thing of His 
making, and this is what the apostle sa)S Christians 
are. He speaks of this matter as if we were passive 
in His hands in this work, like anything made is pas- 
sive in the hands of its maker. He is not talking 
about their physical creation, or the creation of their 
bodies, but he is talking about our creation in Christ, 
not by our good works, nor on account of our good 
work, but unto good works. Good works can not 
be performed until we have been created unto them. 
As Paul never calls the works of the law good works, 
so he must necessarily have allusion to gospel obedi- 
ence. Then this work of creation is unto gospel 
obedience, and is unconditional. It is the work of 
God, so the apostle says, and as it is entirely His 
work, I am forced to believe that it is His work by 
the operation of the Spirit, directly upon the heart. 
The same thing is taught in II Cor. v, 17, 18. 
" Therefore if any be in Christ, he is a new creature ; 
old things have passed away; behold, all things are 
become new. And all things are of God, who hath 
reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath 
given to us the ministry of reconciliation." All 
things are of God. All what things? The apostle 
is on the subject of a man being a new creature in 
Christ. He says God hath reconciled us to Himself 
by Jesus Christ. This work of reconciliation is God's 
work, and there can be no question as to the subject, 
for he is on the subject of being new creatures in 



— 33 1 — 

Christ. This is the subject of our conversion, and 
after He reconciles us to Christ, He then gives us the 
ministry of reconciliation. God was in Christ recon- 
ciling the world unto Himself. This whole work is 
of God. Then the sinner, in his conversion, is cre- 
ated in Christ Jesus unto good works. This creation 
is necessarily the work of the Spirit of God upon the 
heart. 



CHAPTER LXI. 

ALL GUILTY. 

"Now we know that whatsoever the law saith, it 
saith to them who are under the law : that every 
mouth may be stopped, and all the world become 
guilty before God." Rom. iii, 19. 

It seems from this text that none need plead not 
guilty of a violation of God's law, for the expression 
that every mouth may be stopped," seems to signify 
that no one should, for a moment plead self-justifi- 
cation. "And all the world become guilty before 
God." This expression seems to signify that all 
should confess guilt, or plead guilty of sin, and a 
consequent forfeiture, on their part, of all claims on 
the Lord for any of the benefits of grace. It is im- 
possible to preach salvation by grace, and at the 
same time preach that the sinner has any claim on 
the Lord for that grace ; or, as many in this age say, 
an offer of grace. If the sinner is saved by grace, 
it must be that he might have been justly lost with- 



— 33 2 — 

out grace. If he could not have been justly lost 
without grace, then he could have been justly saved 
without it. It is only the man that is guilty and 
undeserving, and unable to make satisfaction for 
his wrongs, or pay his debts or meet his obligations, 
and that might justly be required to do all those 
things at any moment, and sent to torment if he did 
not, that can be saved by grace and mercy. No 
sinner is saved without grace, for no sinner has any 
other way of being saved. The doctrine of grace, 
as has always been held by those who hold the doc- 
trine of a conditional salvation, is about as well 
expressed in the following as in any language we 
could use to express it as we understand it: "As 
all men have sinned in Adam, and have become ex- 
posed to the curse and eternal death, God would 
have done no injustice to anyone, if he had deter- 
mined to leave the whole human race under sin and 
the curse, and to condemn them on account of sin ; 
according to the language of the text, all the world 
is become guilty before God." It does seem to us 
very reasonable, that if the law of God is just — and 
we presume that no Christian will deny the justice of 
the law — that the sinner in the violation of that law 
is justly condemned by it. If he is justly condemned, 
he has no right to claim even a chance to be justified. 
The doctrine that the sinner has rights in this respect 
contradicts the doctrine that his mouth should be 
stopped, for as long as he has anv claim for leniency, 
or a way to escape the punishment of the law, he has 
a right to open his mouth and claim his rights in the 



— 333 — 

face of justice. We heard a man say at one time, 
that if he was lost he would always claim that it was 
unjust. Such men have no idea of their need of 
grace and mercy, for they seem to think that they 
could, of right, sue for heaven on the plea of their 
just title to it. They have no idea that their mouths 
should be stopped, and that they should become, or 
plead guilty before God. We heard another man 
say that under a deep-felt sense of his guilt and just 
condemnation, he felt like saying that if he was sent 
to hell, he would have no complaints to enter, for he 
felt so guilty that he could plead nothing but his own 
guilt, and that was sufficient to cut him off from all 
hope of heaven. These two men are certainly fairly 
represented in the Pharisee and the Publican. If the 
condition of man is so deplorable as to deny him the 
right to present any claim for the opportunity to be 
saved ; then the Arminian ought to stop telling us 
that God must give the sinner a chance, or fail to 
maintain His justice. Parson Brownlow, who was 
on a sick bed, (he and some of his friends thought his 
death bed,) when asked about his prospects for the 
future, said: "I think that if the books in the 
other world have been correctly kept, there is a 
small balance in my favor." This sounds a great 
deal as if the Lord were keeping a balance sheet, and 
that He was measuring men by it. If they do more 
good than evil, then the balance will be in their 
favor. If this is the correct way of viewing this 
matter, then it would seem that when a man does 
wrong, all that is necessary for him to do to expiate 



-334— 

the wrong, is to simply turn about and do some good 
thing, and the whole matter is adjusted. If it were 
possible for man to do more good deeds, than evil 
ones, he would be saved, from the fact that no sin 
would be alleged to him. Where is the need of 
Jesus Christ as a Savior in that theory ? He need not 
atone for the sins of men, for they can atone for their 
own sins by doing good works. 

But any person that has any idea of a law of justice 
and equity, knows that when he breaks the law in 
one point, he is guilty of the whole law, and all the 
good deeds he can do in a long life-time can never 
release him from the claims of the law for its viola- 
tion. The murderer might obey the law to perfec- 
tion for a thousand years, and it would not remove 
the guilt from him. He is just as guilty of murder 
after a long season of strict obedience as he was the 
moment he first committed the crime. If a man lives 
in wickedness and disobedience until he is twenty, 
thirty or forty years old, and then comes to the Lord 
and begins to say: " Lord, I have been a sinner all 
my life, and I have abhorred the church and the 
gospel, and denied the blessed Savior and His mercy, 
and have even mistreated those who exhorted and 
persuaded me to do better. Now, Lord, if thou wilt 
forgive all the past, and let it all go, and save me at 
last, I will love thee all the remainder of my life, and 
obey thy law perpetually and to perfection while I 
stay upon the earth, for, O Lord, thou knowest I do 
not want to die and go to hell," it seems that the 
Lord might justly, according to every conception of 



— 335 — 

justice and equity, tell him, that, of course, he must 
keep the law the remainder of his life. The law 
requires it, and its demands are just, and must be 
honored. When you keep the law from now until 
your death, you have done no more than the law 
required you to do all your life. Your obedience to 
the law from this time forward will not be considered 
as atonement for the past ; therefore you must at last, 
suffer its penalty for the wickedness of your former 
life. Now, if all the world is guilty before God, 
then no man has any right to expect anything but the 
infliction of the severe penalty of the violated law. 
We can conceive of nothing that man can do, nor 
any course he can pursue, that would entitle him to 
open his mouth and claim heaven, or a chance to 
obtain it upon any system of works or merit of his 
own. In all he can do, or in all his friends can tell 
him to do, he is still a sinner when he is done, and 
his mouth is closed, and he is still guilty. He may 
rummage the whole realm of nature for some good 
work that would commend him to God, and he finds 
nothing behind which he can shelter from the just 
demands of the law, for it cries out for satisfaction 
for all the sins of his life. He may explore the whole 
country, and overhaul all the family records for some 
good trait in some relative that might assist him in 
some way or other to come to God and be accepted 
but the Scriptures say, "born, not of blood," so the 
character of his father or mother will not help him, 
but if they would he has no relative that is not in the 
same predicament that he himself is in. Their mouths 



— 33 6 — 

are stopped, and they are guilty before God. This 
is the moral condition of the whole world of man- 
kind, in this state they have no claim upon God for 
anything that would better their condition. Is God 
under obligation to those who are so guilty, and justly 
condemned by his righteous and holy law? If this 
is the true condition of man, how can the Arminian 
say that if the Lord does not give him a chance to 
be saved, He is unjust? He certainly is not unjust 
for punishing the guilty. Man in this state is per- 
fectly satisfied with himself, and thinks himself good 
and worthy. He has no desire to turn and be godly, 
because his heart is set in him to do evil. He will 
never be saved if he does not turn, or unless the 
Lord turns him. The Lord is under no obligation 
to turn him, and the Arminian says~if the Lord turns 
him that he coerces him. The Arminian does not 
believe in coersion, but thinks the sinner must come 
to God of his own free will, and that God will save 
him on the condition that he comes that way. That 
might meet his case if he had the will, but Jesus said 
"Ye will not come to me that you might have life." 
John v, 40. Is God under obligation to give him a 
will? It seems to us that He might as well turn him 
and be done with it, as to give him a will to turn 
himself. But it does seem that the only hope for 
him is for the Lord to turn him, and He is under no 
obligation to do so. If He does turn the sinner when 
He is under no obligation to, what shall we call such 
a work ? The only name we can give it is the Bible 
name, and that is grace. As long as the Lord is 



— 337 — 

under any obligation whatever, to turn him, it is not 
grace, and if He must turn him, and is under no obli- 
gation to, then it is of grace, and unconditional. 
But if the Lord turns one sinner, must He turn all 
sinners, or be unjust? According to the text, the 
whole world stands convicted before God, and as 
they do, and He is the judge before whose tribunal 
they are convicted, He certainly has the unquestion- 
able right to dispose of them as He sees fit. If He 
should see fit to have mercy on one and forgive him 
all his sins, he certainly does no more than to exer- 
cise his own sovereign right, and no one has any 
right to object to or interfere in the affair. It does 
not follow, that because He extends mercy to one, 
that he is under obligations to extend it to another. 
This is the very question that Paul the apostle was 
on when he said: "Therefore hath he mercy on 
whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he 
hardeneth." Rom. ix, 18. If he has a just right to 
make such a discrimination as this between guilty 
men, then the most objectionable feature of the doc- 
trine of unconditional election on the part of Armin- 
ians is sustained. By "hardening" in this text is 
meant that he will judicially abandon them to the 
hardening influences of sin. David says: "But my 
people would not hearken to my voice ; and Israel 
would none of me. So I gave them up into their 
own heart's lust; and they walked in their own coun- 
sels." Ps. lxxxi, ii, 12. It seems from this text 
that they have already been tried, and adjudged 
guilty, and as a punishment for their guilt, the judge 



-338- 

gives them up to hardness, and to simply follow the 
evil natures of their own hearts. In this way he 
hardens them. This is the righteous judgment of 
the great judge of all things, and when the people 
are thus judged, they only receive justice at the hands 
of the Holy One, whose law they have wickedly 
broken. This is the manner in which all punish- 
ment is inflicted, and in it the true character of the 
Divine Lawgiver is made known. This doctrine is 
in harmony with human responsibility, for the man 
that is not responsible to law for what he does, can- 
not be punished, justly, by that law for violating it. 
So when the Lord reckons with man, and finds him 
guilty, He punishes him by just simply giving him 
up to hardness of heart. It is not necessary that the 
Lord decree that such a man shall do wickedly, for 
that is just what every man will do unless restrained 
by grace. The rich man was thus given up to work 
out the evil nature of his own wicked heart, and 
finally be tormented in the flame for his own wicked- 
ness. Just so is every case of those who are finally 
lost. They will not turn from their sins, and we feel 
sure that no one will claim that the Lord is under 
any obligation to turn them. It is thus, then that He 
hardens some. 

But He does not harden all, for the text says He 
will have mercy on some. But the great apostle an- 
ticipates an objection. ' 'Why doth he yet find fault ? 
for who hath resisted his will ?" This objection seems 
to say that if God chooses and leaves out, pardons 
and punishes, whom He pleases, why are those 



—339— 

blamed who, if left out of His choice, cannot help 
sinning and perishing? This is an objection to some 
doctrine or other that was held and taught by the 
apostle in this text; and we think this would be a 
good place to determine whether this supposed ob- 
jection was raised against the doctrine of Arminian- 
ism, as held in this age of the world, that pardon is 
offered to all alike, on gospel terms, and that men 
are fully able to comply with the terms, and thereby 
be saved and escape torment, and enjoy all the ben- 
efits of pardon, and that none need to be lost, or is it 
an objection to the doctrine of God's discriminating 
and electing grace that saves some, and leaves the 
others out? Our experience in the world has taught 
us that when we teach the doctrine of election, and 
that God is the elector, all Arminians contend that 
it destroys the responsibility of man, and that if the 
doctrine is true, man is a mere machine. But we 
have never heard such an objection to the doctrine of 
Arminianism ; so we conclude that it was not the 
Arminian doctrine Paul was advocating here, for 
such an objection is never urged against that doc- 
trine. Hence, this objection shows conclusively that 
it is the election of some to eternal salvation, and the 
leaving out of others, prior to any difference of per- 
sonal character. There is no other doctrine that 
could suggest the objection here stated, and to this 
doctrine the objection seems reasonable to many. 
Then what are we left to conclude, only that, in this 
Scripture the doctrine of unconditional election is 
taught? If it is taught here it must be the doctrine 



—34°— 

of the Bible, though all the world should object to 
it. The objection itself is founded on a misunder- 
standing oi the relation between God and His sinful 
creatures, supposing that He is under obligation to 
extend His grace to all, whereas He is under obliga- 
tion to none. If He is under any such obligation, 
then every mouth is not stopped, for they have a right 
to call on the Lord, not as penitents, but as they who 
have just and legal claims have a right to plead for 
such claims, they have the right to simply ask God — 
not for mercy, but to fulfill His obligation to them. 
But our text denies man any such right. His mouth 
is stopped and he can plead nothing. Men of this 
standing are dealt with according Rom. ix, 18: The 
Lord has mercy on one and hardens another. 

But we have already shown that none will turn 
from sin and seek God unless the Lord turns them. 
Jesus said: "And ye will not come unto me that ye 
might have life." John v, 40. This text clearly 
shows their unwillingness to come to the Lord for 
life. Just let them alone to do as their evil natures 
would lead them, and they never would come. Offer 
them salvation on the condition that they, of their 
own free will, come to the Savior, and they would 
not be saved on that plan. But Jesus again says: 
"No man can come to me, except the Father which 
hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at 
the last day." John vi, 44. From this text it is seen 
that man cannot come to Christ. The Father must 
draw him, or he cannot come. If the Father draws 
a sinner to Christ, that sinner is certain to get there, 



—34i— 

but, if the Father does not draw him, he will not 
get there, for he cannot come except the Father draw 
him. On what does the sinner coming to Christ de- 
pend? Does it depend on his own will and ability? 
We say no. It depends altogether on the Father 
drawing him. Do men come to Christ? Yes, many 
of them do ; then the Father draws them. Does the 
Father draw all the race of men to Christ? If not, 
then he must draw some and leave others out. We 
understand this to be the apostle's meaning when he 
said: "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will, 
and whom he will he hardeneth." In this no man 
is shut away from Christ by a decree of the Lord, 
for they will not come, and it is not necessary to de- 
cree that they shall not come. None will come un- 
less the Lord brings them, therefore he has decreed 
to bring some, and in harmony with that decree He 
draws them to Him and saves them. In this way He 
has mercy on those he brings. In this way the lan- 
guage of Jesus is fulfilled that says: "All that the 
Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that 
cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out." John 
vi > 37- 



—34-2— 
CHAPTER LXII. 

THE ELDER SHALL SERVE THE YOUNGER. 

The author of this wonderful expression, about 
which there has been as much confusion and as many 
theological speculations as any other one text in the 
Bible, is the God of heaven. It does not matter 
what poor puny, and ignorant mortals like we are, 
may think of the language, nor that from our way of 
looking at it we may think His arrangements in the 
matter are unfair, and far from being just, yet God 
said, "The elder shall serve the younger," and we 
must concede that it is perfectly just and right or He 
would not have said it. This familiar portion of 
God's word refers, literally, to Jacob and Esau. 
"For the children being not yet born, neither having 
done any good or evil, that the purpose of God 
according to election might stand, not of works, but 
of him that calleth. It was said unto her, the elder 
shall serve the younger." Why the Lord would 
reverse the law that governed all such cases, by giv- 
ing the inheritance to the younger, instead of giving 
it to the elder, of course, cannot be accounted for, 
merely by any literal construction of the text. The 
law gave the first born the preference, and by virtue 
of his birth he was entitled to the blessing, and the 
younger could, under no circumstances, interfere 
with it. It must be, and the text intimates clearly 
that there is a very important lesson, concerning the 
principles of sovereign and discriminating grace to 
be learned from the manner of God's dealings with 



—343— 

Jacob and Esau. It is not merely to deprive Esau 
of his literal birth right with nothing more in view, 
but the apostle says, "that the purpose of God 
according to election might stand, not of works but 
of him that calleth." It is very clearly shown from 
the Scriptural account of these two brothers that the 
service was not of a personal nature, for if Esau ever 
did serve Jacob in the capacity of a servant person- 
ally, we have no special account of it. We know 
that he sold his birth right to Jacob for a mess of 
pottage, after coming in from his hunt, faint, and, as 
he thought, ready to die, and that gave Jacob the 
right to the place of the first born, for he had pur- 
chased it, and when we examine the matter carefully, 
there are some points in it which go to show that God 
will carry oat His purpose over every opposition, no 
matter from what source it may come. The idea 
that the elder should serve the younger did not hinge 
on the will or actions of men, for if it had God's 
purpose would not have been carried out. Isaac, 
notwithstanding the Lord had told Rebecca that the 
elder should serve the younger, was very desirous to 
confer the blessing on Esau his first born. The 
apostle says, "So then, it is not of him that willeth, 
nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth 
mercy." The truth of this declaration is exhibited 
clearly in the salvation of every sinner that is saved. 
But it is never more clearly shown than in the cases 
of Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau. Abra- 
ham and Sarah willed, and if their will could have 
been respected in the affair, Isaac would never have 



—344— 

been born, and God's purpose would not have stood. 
God's purpose was that Abraham should be the 
father of a great nation, and that for that purpose 
Sarah, although she had been barren, and was, at 
the time of God's promise to Abraham, past the 
flower of her age, was to have a son, and from a 
human standpoint it seemed impossible that God's 
promise ever could be verified. After Ishmael was 
born, Abraham was perfectly willing he should be 
the heir of promise, saying, "O that Ishmael might 
live before thee. Gen. xxvii, 18. But instead of 
the Lord respecting the will of Abraham in the mat- 
ter, he said, "Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son 
indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac; and I 
will establish my covenant with him for an everlast- 
ing covenant, and with his seed after him. And as 
for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold I have 
blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will 
multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he 
beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my 
covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah 
shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year." 
Gen. xxvii, 19, 20, 21. It is very clearly seen here 
that it is not of him that willeth nor of him that run- 
neth, but of God that sheweth mercy. While Abra- 
ham was the literal father of the Jews, yet his seed 
were not all Jews, and more ; while the Jews were 
the literal seed of Abraham, yet they were not all 
children. The apostle. says, "Neither, because they 
are the seed of Abraham, are they all children; but 
in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they 



—345— 

which are the children of the flesh, these are not the 
children of God : but the children of the promise are 
counted for the seed." Rom. ix, 7, 8. If because 
they were the seed of Abraham they were all chil- 
dren, then Ishmael and all his descendants, and Esau 
and all his progeny would have been included in the 
covenant with Isaac. Or, if the children of the flesh 
were the children of God, then Esau and all his off- 
spring, and all others of the descendants of Abraham 
and Isaac would have been included. But from 
what we have already observed Ishmael and his pos- 
terity do not stand upon an equality with Isaac. 
"Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out 
the bond woman and her son ; for the son of the bond 
woman shall not be heir with the son of the free 
woman." Gal. iv, 30. As to Esau we know what 
the Lord has said concerning him. He was called 
Edom from the time he sold his birth right. Gen. 
xxv, 30, and he lived in the land of Sier, the country 
of Edom, and the Lord by the prophet Malachi, said, 
"I have loved you saith the Lord. Yet ye say, 
Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's 
brother? Saith the Lord; yet I loved Jacob, and I 
hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage 
waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas 
Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will 
return and build the desolate places ; thus saith the 
Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw 
down ; and they shall call them the border of wicked- 
ness, and the people against whom the Lord hath 
indignation forever." Mai. i, 2, 3, 4. 



— 34 6— 

We do not believe that the Lord saves any man 
because of his flesh and blood relation to Abraham, 
neither do we believe that he damns any because they 
are related to Ishmael or Esau according to the flesh ; 
but it is quite certain that there were discriminations 
made between Jacob and Esau, and that it was not 
on account of works. Before they were born, 
neither having done any good or evil, the Lord said, 
"The elder shall serve the younger." There shall 
be some sense in which this is true, and that upon 
the principle mentioned in this text. It could not 
have been that the descendants of Esau were to 
serve Jacob or his descendants as slaves, for this was 
never the case literally. Jacob did flee from Esau, 
after he had obtained the blessing, for he knew Esau 
was angry with him, and on his return with his 
wives and children he feared Esau, and when he met 
him he bowed himself to the ground seven times, 
until he came near to him. This looks more like he 
was the servant than the ruler. But we know that 
Jacob did get the blessing from his father that Esau 
ran for. Isaac willed, and Esau ran, and Jacob ob- 
tained the blessing. In this case the elder served the 
younger. The promised seed was not propagated 
through Ishmael nor Esau, but Isaac and Jacob. It 
is very certain that there is a sense in which Jacob and 
Esau represent God's election of some men to salva- 
tion, and His non-election of others, and this election 
is not suspended on creature conditions. If the will 
of man has anything to do in governing God in the 
choice of men to salvation, how is it that He set aside 



—347— 

every effort on the part of man, and disregarded his 
will in the affair, as he did Abraham in the case of 
Ishmael, and Isaac in the case of Esau? Man was 
not counselled in the whole arrangement. We are 
often told by w 7 ork mongers that it is dangerous to 
wait for the Lord to work. Abraham and Sarah 
thought the same thing, and in harmony with the 
doctrine they put forth both will and effort, and, as 
a result instead of favoring the purpose of God, 
there was one born who persecuted the heir of prom- 
ise when he was born. We have always been 
accused of waiting the Lord's good time, and have 
often been blamed because we would not put forth 
an effort to bring about the good results that God 
had promised. But God did promise Abraham 
that, ' v At this time will I come, and Sarah shall 
have a son." Rom. ix, 9. All the willingness 
manifested by Abraham and Sarah did not facilitate 
the work a particle, nor cause it to to come to pass 
any sooner. The Lord had set the time, and man 
could not hurry it up. It was wicked, and showed 
great distrust on their part to undertake it. By the 
efforts of men the Lord's purpose may be, and have 
been opposed, but by the efforts of men the Lord's 
work has never been hurried, nor hindered. At His 
appointed time, and in His appointed way, and by 
His appointed means He does His work. If it was His 
purpose that Sarah should have a son in whom His 
seed should be called, even if Sarah does not believe 
it, and if she and Abraham laugh at the thought of 
a thing so unreasonable, it is still as true as if they 



-34§- 

believed it, for it is God's work to bring it about, 
and if they undertake to assist the Lord in the accom- 
plishment of His purpose, by some expediency of 
their own, He will not accept their labor. Ishmael, 
the child of the human free-will effort was not only 
not permitted to be the heir, but he was not allowed 
any part in the matter. Are there any Ishmaelites 
to-day? Ishmael was born after the flesh, and per- 
secuted Him that was born after the Spirit, which 
was Isaac, and the apostle says: "But as then he 
that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was 
born after the Spirit, even so it is now." Gal. iv, 
29. As an evidence that Ishmael represented him 
that is born after the flesh, see verses 22, 23, of the 
same chapter. "For it is written that Abraham had 
two sons, the one by a bondmaid, and the other by a 
free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman 
was born after the flesh ; but he of the free woman 
was by promise." 

The fulfillment of the promise to Abraham that, 
( although he was childless, and thought that his prop- 
erty would descend to Eliezer, the stranger who held 
the next rank in his tribe, on which account he com- 
plained to the Lord,) he should have a son, and that 
his seed should be as countless as the stars of heaven, 
was delayed until God's own time. Why wait till 
the Lord's own time rolls round? We are often told 
that His time is now; and that if we wait We run a 
very dangerous risk. This is what Sarah thought 
no doubt, as she knew that Abraham was old. She 
had despaired of the promise ever being fulfilled, in 



—349— 

her person, so she gave her handmaid to Abraham, 
that the promise might not fail. It is wonderful to 
see man stretch forth his mighty arm to assist in the 
accomplishment of the mighty works of the Lord. 
Why would it not do as well in the Lord's plan to 
let Ishmael be the heir? Hagar, according to the 
custom of those times, had become the secondary 
wife ot Abraham, and children born in this manner 
had the privileges of legitimacy, and then they need 
not wait longer for the fulfillment of the promise. 
But it would not do, no matter how plausible it may 
appear to others, it was not God's purpose. That 
God that by His own hand stretched out the heavens, 
that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, that weighs 
the hills in the balance, and the mountains in scales, 
and picks up the isles as a small thing, — that God 
who wields His holy sceptre over the whole universe, 
who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, 
and who commands and it stands fast, and who 
Himself is immutable and His purposes unfrustrable, 
is able to make good His promise to Abraham with- 
out condescending to accept Ishmael as the prom- 
ised heir, no matter how sincere and honest Sarah 
might have been in her effort to hinder the Lord's 
promise from being a failure. Wait until His time 
and all things will work out right and His plans will 
be executed. It is very common, in this day of 
means and human expediencies, for people to ridi- 
cule the idea of awaiting the Lord's good time. The 
zeal of the people will not allow them to wait, but 
they must put forth their efforts to hurry up matters 



—35°- 

by the use of some expediency or other. But we have 
always been of the opinion that the Lord will not do 
His work until His own time, and while we may 
think His time is slow to roll around, we must wait. 
Isaac was promised at least ten years before Ishmael 
was born, and simply because Sarah feared the 
purpose of God might never be accomplished, if 
they waited, she evidently being very eager for 
the certainty of the matter, concluded that it would 
be best not to run the risk of waiting. JtJence, 
human effort was put forth, in order to make all 
things sure, so that there could be no failure. But 
the Lord did not accept this grand outcome of human 
will and works, but they must wait until His time 
rolled around. 

It was about twenty-five years from the time Isaac 
was promised until he was born. But we would be 
asked now, why wait so long? O, how impatient 
poor frail human nature is! But there is, perhaps, 
as much grace required to prepare us to wait until 
the Lord is ready, as to prepare us for any other ser- 
vice. The God of heaven had a purpose, and that 
purpose must stand. Abraham was to be the natural 
progenitor of a great nation, and he was to be the 
great representative of all the Lord's elect people. 
"In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the 
earth be blest," means more than a promise hinged 
upon human conditions and efforts, but it means that 
the Lord will save his people from among all the 
families of the world. It is just as impossible for 
this promise to fail as it was to frustrate the Lord's 



— 35 1 — 

promise that Isaac should be born. In Isaac was the 
promised seed, and the promised seed here embraces 
all of God's elect, all over the earth, and of every 
age of the world. There will never be one saved 
that was not embraced in this promise. Have we 
good reasons for so saying? Let us see. There will 
be none saved that are not Christ's; and none are 
Christ's only the seed of Abraham ; and those who 
are the seed of Abraham ; are heirs according to the 
promise. The apostle says, "And if ye be Christ's 
then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to 
the promise. Gal. iii, 29. It may seem to many 
that the Lord will never fulfill this promise, but He 
is just as certain to make it good as He has made it. 
The history of the world to the present time demon- 
strates the fact most conclusively that if the Lord 
depends on human effort, and human liberality, and 
human goodness to make his premise sure, it will be 
a signal failure. The most zealous men the world 
has are too fond of earthly ease and comfort, and the 
honors and distinctions that this world gives, to lavish 
a sufficient amount of means for missionary pur- 
poses to do much towards evangelizing the world. 
■If the Lord waits for such avaricious creatures to put 
forth a sufficient amount of means and labor in the 
interest of the heathen, to save them, then we think 
we may begin to doubt the words of the Savior, when 
He says, " All that the Father giveth me shall come 
to me." John, vi, 37. But, if He undertakes to save 
sinners by and through Christ, then we presume He 
will be able to meet the most stubborn oppositions, 



— 35 3 ~ 

and overcome them, and subdue and conquer the most 
formidable enemies, no matter how numerous nor 
how strong. The most perplexing difficulties will 
give way in the presence of conquering and reigning 
grace, like the morning dew before the sun. Sinners 
will be saved! O, what a mighty work to conquer, 
subdue and save sinners who are entirely unworthy 
that God should notice them ! It will be done, and 
God's purpose according to election shall stand, not 
of works, but of him that calleth. "The elder shall 
serve the younger." Nothing can hinder it. It can 
never be made to turn out some other way, no matter 
who may will nor who may run. It may not be 
pleasant to the elder to submit to such service, but 
it must be that way, and just as certain as it is, just 
that certain the doctrine of unconditional election is 
true. God chooses some men to salvation and leaves 
others out just on the same principle that he loved 
Jacob and hated Esau. There may be an effort to 
have the younger serve the elder, but it will not 
change God's arrangement any. All the efforts that 
are, have been, or will be, will never change the 
Lord's purpose in the least. Election looks as hard 
and unjust to many people, as the distinction the- 
Lord made between Jacob and Esau. If man, by 
any stratagem that he could invent were to change the 
purpose of God in a single instance, there is no way 
of knowing what the result would be. But " God 
declared the end from the beginning, and from 
ancient times the things that are not yet done, say- 
ing, "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my 



— 353 — 

pleasure." We cannot believe that men, with all 
the efforts they put forth, have ever, or will ever 
cause one single soul to be saved that would not be 
saved without them. God purposed the salvation 
of all that will be saved. 



CHAPTER LXIII. 

THE LONG-SUFFERING OF GOD. 

On this I subject, feel disposed to offer a few 
thoughts, for the careful consideration of my read- 
ers, hoping that our minds may be drawn to the 
magnitude and importance of the fact, that God is 
the moral ruler and governor of all things. Although 
men of wicked tempers and passions may commit 
crime of the most aggravated nature, and with great 
impunity, without Suffering any immediate penalty 
of law, yet it is abundantly taught in God's word, 
that there will be a reckoning, in which men will 
have to account for their wicked actions, of this life. 
It is hardly necessary for us to undertake now, to 
argue that there will be in the future, a judgment, 
and that wicked men will suffer the consequences of 
their wickedness, and impenitence hereafter. In 
proof of our position that men will suffer hereafter 
for what they do in this life, we call your attention 
to the Savior's language: Matt, .xxv, 46. "And 
these shall go away into everlasting punishment. '* 
We base an argument upon the word punishment. 
If people are to be punished hereafter, it must be for 



—354— 

something they have done, as the word punishment, 
itself, signifies a just retribution for crime. Hence, 
the wicked shall go away, and suffer the just retri- 
bution for their crimes ; and there is no escape from 
the just penalty of an offended law, outside of the 
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and upon this very 
hypothesis the inspired apostle preaches to his Roman 
brethren in the following language: "Therefore, 
thou art inexcusable, O, man, whoever thou art that 
judgest, for wherein thou judgest another, thou con- 
demnest thyself ; for thou that judgest doest the same 
things. But we are sure that the judgment of God 
is according to truth against them which commit 
such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that 
judgest them which do such things, and doest the 
same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?" 
Rom. ii, i, 2, 3. The apostle, in this language, 
refers, doubtless, to the wickedness alluded to in the 
preceding chapter; and while a man is guilty of the 
things mentioned and does not suffer immediate 
punishment for his sins, the apostle's reasoning seems 
to be, that he is under a terrible delusion, if he thinks 
that he shall escape, finally, the judgments of God. 
It is but an exhibition of God's long-suffering that 
men can go on with great impunity, and commit 
crime without being immediately punished. We can 
only account for why the Lord does not smite wicked 
men, immediately, as he did Gehaza, of old, and 
King Herod, when he suffered himself deified by the 
people, and the Lord smote him to death, or Uzza, 
who stretched forth his hand to steady the ark, when 



—355— 

the oxen shook it, or the two Hebrews who kindled 
a fire on the Sabbath day, contrary to law, and were 
smitten down for their crime. We say we can only 
account for why the Lord does not still execute His 
judgments on men for their wickedness now ; only 
that He bears with them for the present time, and 
men sometimes come to the conclusion, that because 
we do not see His judgments executed now, that in 
all probability there never will be a judgment. But 
the Apostle Peter says : "For if God spared not the 
angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and 
delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved 
unto judgment ; and spared not the old world, but 
saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righte- 
ousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the 
ungodly, etc." II Peter ii, 4, 5, 6. We learn from 
the Apostle Peter here, that wicked men are reserved 
unto judgment ; and not only are they reserved unto 
judgment, but when we read the ninth verse of the 
same chapter, we have the following unmistakable 
language: "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the 
godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust 
unto the day of judgment to be punished." Notice 
here the apostle intimates that the Lord reserves the 
unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished. 

We never could see any comfort to a Christian, in 
denying that there will be, in the futute, a general 
reckoning, and that men will be judged. This seems 
to be so abundantly set forth in the Scriptures, that 
to question it, is, almost to betray infidelity, it seems 
to us. In the language of the apostle, in his noted 



-356- 

sermon, at Marrs Hill, he says: "Because he hath 
appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world, 
in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained ; 
whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in 
that he hath raised him from the dead." Acts xvii, 
31. There is a day coming when the wicked shall 
be judged, but God bears with the wickedness of 
the world now. He does not intend to bring the 
wickedness of the world into judgment to-day. 
As the Great Judge and Moral Disposer of all 
things, He has a right to preserve the people, 
and to bear with all manner of wickedness and 
abominations, that they are guilty of, but He 
has given us His word that the fact that He does 
not punish them to-day, is no evidence whatever that 
He will never punish them, at all ; hence the language 
that we have already quoted from the Apostle Paul, 
to the Romans seems to be to the point. " Thinkest 
thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such 
things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape 
the judgment of God?" One man judging another 
man for doing wickedly, and he doing the very same 
things himself, and yet thinks that he will escape 
God's judgment ! This seems to be the argument 
of the great apostle on this occasion. "Or," he 
continues, "despiset thou the riches of his goodness 
and forbearance, and longsuffering ; not knowing 
that the goodness of God, leadeth thee to repent- 
ance ?" It seems that the apostle would infer, that 
to think that we can be guilty of crime, and yet 
escape the judgment of God, simply, because we are 



— 357 — 

not punished at once, is an evidence that we despise 
His goodness and forbearance and longsuffering. 
Our judgment is that God has a use for the world, 
and that he will bear with the wickedness of men 
until the great work of the salvation of His people is 
accomplished. Forbearance means to withhold pun- 
ishment that might be inflicted now, and longsuffer- 
ing means to continue to forbear; hence God bears 
with the world of wicked men ; that is, He withholds 
the penalty that might be justly inflicted now, upon 
men for their wickedness, and He continues to for- 
bear, which amounts to longsuffering. The Apostle 
Peter speaks of this matter when he says: "The 
Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some 
men count slackness ; but is longsuffering to us-ward, 
not willing that any should perish, but that all should 
come to repentance." 2 Peter iii, 9. The promise 
in this text is evidently the second coming of Christ, 
for, the apostle informs us, "That there shall come in 
the last days scoffers walking after their own lusts, 
and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for 
since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as 
they were from the beginning of the creation." Some 
of the apostles and early Christians expected to live 
to see the day of the second coming of Christ into 
the world, and there were others who doubted that 
He would ever come, even as there are some to-day, 
professing Christianity, that are denying, absolutely, 
that Christ will ever make another personal visit to 
this world. In these things, the Apostle Peter was 
certainly a true prophet. But Peter goes on to say: 



-358- 

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the 
word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth 
standing out of the water and in the water: Where- 
by the world that then was, being overflowed with 
water, perished ; but the heavens and the earth, which 
are now, by the same word are kept in store, re- 
served unto fire against the day of judgment and 
perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not 
ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the 
Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as 
one day." Then comes the text: "The Lord is 
not slack concerning his promise, as some men count 
slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, etc. ,, 

He promised that Christ would come into the 
world again, and He is certain to come, and the fact 
that we do not see any sign of His coming now, and 
that, as those false teachers say, all things continue 
as they were from the creation, is not an evidence 
that He shall never come. He will come. "God is 
not slack concerning His promise, as some men 
count slackness, but is longsuffering to us-ward, not 
willing that any should perish, but that all should 
come to repentance." We have heard different men 
give an interpretation of this text, but we will give 
our interpretation of it. Some have interpreted it 
that the Lord is longsuffering to us-ward — us Chris- 
tians, saints, not willing that any of the saints should 
perish, but that they should all come to repentance. 
We are under the impression that this is not what 
the apostle means by the language. He intended to 
convey the idea that God is longsuffering to the 



—359— 

world — the whole world of the ungodly — -that is, He 
bears long with them, and continues to forbear, and 
the reason He does it, the Apostle Peter says, He is 
not willing that any should perish, but that all should 
come to repentance. Our version of this text would 
be that there are hundreds and thousands and multi- 
plied thousands of God's elect, who were embraced 
in the covenant of grace from the very ancients of 
eternity, chosen in Christ before the foundation of 
the world to salvation, predestinated unto the adop- 
tion of the children of God, that are yet in a state of 
unregeneracy, and multiplied thousands of them, 
perhaps, yet unborn. If the world was to be brought 
to a close to-day all such would perish. God is not 
willing that any of them should perish ; that is, any 
of the elect, but that all should come to repentance. 
And, in order to bring this all about, He bears with 
the wickedness of men, and continues to forbear, 
and is longsuffering toward them, until all the great 
work of His salvation has been consummated, and 
His people saved. But, while we wait, let us not 
consider that He will never come, for the apostle 
says : "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief 
in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass 
away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt 
with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that 
are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all 
these things shall be dissolved, what manner of per- 
sons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and god- 
liness? Looking for and hasting unto the coming of 
the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire 



— 3 6o— 

shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with 
fervent heat? Nevertheless, we, according to His 
promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, 
wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore beloved, 
seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that 
ye may be found of Him in peace without spot, and 
blameless. And account that the longsuffering of 
our Lord is salvation." The reader will observe here 
that Christians are to look for and hasten to the com- 
ing of the day of God. Looking according to His 
promise for a new heaven and a new earth, and see- 
ing that we look for such things that we should be 
diligent ; that is, that we should live up to our duties, 
and show our confidence in the coming of those 
things. But that of most importance in this subject 
is, that we should count that the longsuffering of God 
is salvation, — not that it is an opportunity to be saved, 
or that it is an offer of salvation to an ungodly world, 
but that it is absolutely salvation. We firmly believe 
thatitwillbe the salvation of all God's elect, and .while 
the work is going on, it is necessary that the world 
stand, and while the world stands and wickedness 
pervades the earth among all nations and ranks of 
men — God bears with it reserving them until the day 
of judgment, and this is His forbearance. 

While we maintain that the wicked will be pun- 
ished for what they do in this world, and that God is 
ju*t as certain to bring the world into judgment as 
His word is true, we want to be distinctly understood 
that we do not believe that salvation is conditional, 
and depends upon the work of the creature. We 



— 3 61 — 

have been accused by some of preaching the doc- 
trine of a conditional salvation, on the ground that 
we claim that men will be punished hereafter for 
what they do in this life. We believe that men are 
condemned and punished for what they do, and we 
believe that all men on account of their own evil 
works are justly under a sentence of condemnation, 
but while we believe that, we hold that Jesus Christ 
came into the world full of grace and truth, for the 
purpose of suffering for the sins of His people, for 
which they must have suffered, had He not, and that 
His sufferings were an equivalent to the demands of 
the law against them, on which account sinners are 
redeemed from the curse of the law, lifted up to a 
state of holiness, and happiness, and to the dignified 
position" of being the children of God, and that they, 
so far as themselves are concerned, are wholly un- 
worthy of any of the benefits of the atoning sacrifice 
of Christ. They are unworthy to receive any of the 
benefits of His salvation and grace. Yet they feel a 
desire to give glory and honor and praise to the name 
of the Savior that brought salvation to such unwor- 
thy, ungodly sinners, as they know themselves to be, 
and while wicked men t v ample upon the mercies of 
God, and despise His judgments, it should be con- 
sidered the highest privilege of the saint to be desiring 
to know what God's will is, and then doing that will 
when he knows it. For him to knowingly refuse to 
obey the Lord, or try to do His will, is for him to de- 
spise the goodness and long-forbearance, and long- 
suffering of God. But for him to take up the cross, 



—7,62— 

deny himself and follow the Savior in humility, love 
and godly fear, is to reflect to the world the glories 
and excellencies of the character of the true Savior 
who gave Himself for poor sinners such as we are. 
And now may we all be able to come unto mount 
Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heav- 
enly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of 
angels, to the general assembly and church of the 
firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God 
the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made 
perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new cove- 
nant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh 
better things than that of Abel. ' 




6 91 



















































. ^ 



? 















.^ x 

























' 
















1 



-^ c>' 



ry 






A' - 






-> 






; •;. 

























o. 
























**o 


















**> 








s> * 






■ 















v" 






.* 



:>. ^ 



^ c° 












% V* 












LIBRARY OF CONGRESS f 



021 899 470 2 



